Skip to content

This just gets better and better

January 30, 2010

We’re close to finding out that the authoritative works used as source material for the The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) was something someone got from a box of Honeycomb. This latest revelation just adds to the already extraordinary crime that was committed. This is going to end up being the most expensive crime ever committed against society. When you factor in the billions to trillions of dollars spent on programs we were told were ‘necessary’ if we wanted to survive as a race the cost is going to be staggering.

Do I think the planet is less healthy than it was 100 years ago? I think it might be, I’m not sure what criteria people use, but now that we know the ‘experts’ are full of crap, where do you go to get real data, real information? Wasn’t this at the heart of the meetings a few months ago? Is it going to die this quickly and no one is going to be held accountable?

What a joke.

26 Comments leave one →
  1. valeriemuckle permalink
    January 30, 2010 10:38 pm


  2. Juch an Jehwy permalink
    January 31, 2010 1:33 am

    well, so far the IPCC has won a Nobel Prize and you havent, so gee, I think I might take their word for it over yours, regardless of how mediocre a pitcher you wee after you decided to not simply be “fat schlubby guy.” Im sorry, is it one strike and you’re out? gee, i’d hate to have that apply to your buddy john mccain, right? hmmm.

  3. jjfoh permalink
    January 31, 2010 8:32 am

    Curt, this is nonsense. It’s like saying that because the Mets have made some incredibly stupid decisions everyone in baseball is an idiot. There are tons of good honest scientists who have made good arguments that global warming is real, and incredibly dangerous. You pour carbon into the air and the planet is likely to get warmer–what’s the problem with that? There are also tons of wealthy corporations that have a reason to pay people to blur the issues and allow them to keep polluting. Do you remember the tobacco companies lying to us for years? What do the tanning salons say about skin cancer? The idea that tons of scientists are lying about this so as to make Al Gore rich is just total nonsense. And for a guy of your limited intelligence to be commenting on this in public is incredibly foolish. We still don’t know whether our children will look back in 40 years and see Curt Schilling’s blog as the thing that stopped health care reform, but my God, do you really want to stop both health health reform and the possible reversal of global warming?

    • February 10, 2010 1:01 am

      Dear Curt,

      My name is Nick. I am a student and researcher studying climate change at Columbia University in the City of New York. I am a huge baseball fan, and I regard you as the greatest clutch postseason pitcher of my lifetime. In 2007 as you battled back from a troublesome shoulder injury that sapped you of your velocity or in 2004 when you pitched with the bloodied and battered ankle, I knew that the opponent never had a chance to win the big game when you were on the mound for the Red Sox. And for that I respect you. I also appreciate your contribution to helping MLB clean up the damage from the steroid era—an era in which you dominated on the mound by playing the game in a clean fashion. Finally, I have great respect for your love of history—both that of the MLB and your respect for the Greatest Generation that served our country during World War II and protected America from fascism in Europe and Japan.

      However, I disagree strongly with you in the support and credence you have lent to the propaganda aimed at discrediting the climate science which overwhelmingly concludes that man-made activities are causing changes to the climate which entails many risks to our society and our economy. Indeed, many of the scientists who routinely castigate institutions like the IPCC and distinguished climate researchers like Dr. James Hansen are well-known to receive money from the fossil fuel lobby who still see obfuscating the discussion about what to do in response to the clear evidence for man-made climate change as a more profitable strategy than using their enormous resources to help the public undergo the shift to an economy more reliant upon cleaner fuel. They’d rather put up with a status quo that ensures that they profit while the rest of the economy loses—that’s the reasonable conclusion that any fair-minded person must conclude when presented with the evidence of climate change. Besides, if we drove cars which no longer required foreign oil (even if the USA dramatically increased oil drilling domestically, the country would still be substantially dependent upon foreign sources of oil found in countries with governments and populations whose political and economic goals are inimical to those of the United States) and we powered our homes from sources other than coal we would gain many other benefits that would far outweigh the costs (be they cap-and-trade, be they tax, be they some other policy like cap-and-rebate or a host of others being debated as we speak). For instance, the increased national security gained from giving governments like Saudi Arabia less money (19 of the 21 hijackers responsible for 9/11 were Saui nationals) because we decoupled our transportation systems from oil) and the increased public health from no longer burning a dirty fuel like coal that causes so many negative health impacts upon communities near mines and power plants would be of incalculable benefit to millions of Americans! To come out of this recession, the jobs created from developing new energy technology and building new infrastructure in this country could offer a unique opportunity to restore economic health to so many lives damaged by recent economic turmoil—I see that as a distinct and likely positive result of addressing climate change constructively by weaning ourselves off of oil for our cars and coal for our lights. America used to be the country that wanted to conquer space and land a man on the moon. If we could do that, we can find clean fuels that will make lives better and our planet healthier!

      Right on “jjfoh”. One mistake in a report volumes of length about the speed of Asian glacial melt does nothing to discredit the basic fact of the matter that human alterations of the global carbon cycle through land use changes and the burning of massive quantities of fossil fuels has changed atmospheric chemistry such that the Earth’s atmosphere captures and “traps” outgoing longwave radiation because of increased concentrations of CO2 and other gases. The “trapping” of this outgoing longwave radiation occurs because of the chemical properties of GHGs allow them to gain more energy from longwave radiation the Earth reradiates out to space.

      The laws governing how we understand the temperature of the Sun and how we understand the temperature of the Earth are actually quite old—they date back to the 19th century. They are Wien’s Law and the Stefan-Boltzmann’s constant. They are not seriously contested by any scientist. Furthermore, one of the earliest Nobel Prizes was awarded to Svante Arrhenius, a Swedish scientist and arguably the father of physical chemistry, who accurately diagnosed that the CO2 released from the burning of fossil fuel by industry would increase the natural greenhouse effect of the Earth.

      The view that anthropogenic emissions are having an important and outsized forcing on the radiative balance of the planet—ie) it’s heat-trapping capability—has always been the dominant view in the scientific community. In the 1970s, a couple of scientists received some attention from Newsweek for remarking that then recent annual temperature trends indicated the world was heading into another Ice Age. In the absence of massive increases in global population and massive increases in fossil-fuel based industry, natural climate cycles established over very long periods (solar cycles, Earth tilt variations, and Earth precession) would seem to indicate that in the 21st century; planet Earth would enter a cooling phase based just upon the past cycle of long-term natural trends clearly observable from the paleoclimatic record trending back nearly 1 million years into the past.

      In the more recent past which contains more spatially distributed temperature data that dates back through the 19th century for many world regions (so we get not only global averages but regionally specific temperature observations) as well as observations measuring incoming solar radiation, slight temperature variations and observed changes in the solar cycle generally tended to track each other quite nicely. However, since the mid-1970s (according to the Max Planck Institute—perhaps the world’s leading scientific outfit monitoring changes in the behavior of the sun) the close correlation between observed temperature and solar radiation began to break down. As you can see, solar irradiance has barely increased while the temperature has clearly had a marked upward trajectory far above previous recent human history.

      (See graph below)

      I note that in terms of discussing the sustainability of the planet going forward—using only the reference of recent climatic history dating back the last couple of thousand years is relevant.

      Why is this type of time frame relevant? Human civilization, especially agriculture, is a finely-tuned and precarious activity filled with risks. Fertilizers, mechanization, advanced credit markets, cross-breeding for hybrid plant varieties, and irrigation are the only technologies that have made humanity capable of feeding human populations numbering in the billions. Even still, major famines and agricultural disasters in even relatively wealthy and powerful countries have occurred, notably the Dust Bowl of the 1930s. These agricultural disasters coincided with slight natural variations in the climate (probably due to natural variations in ocean SST variation and their impacts on ocean currents and related weather patterns). While the Dust Bowl also occurred because of over-tilling, rampant financial speculation in agricultural credit, and other socio-economic developments; natural decadal climate variability was a key factor. Globally shifting weather patterns in an even slightly warmer world will make events like the Dust Bowl far more likely to happen—and at a time when the world has more mouths to feed and even the United States faces important food security questions in the years ahead thanks to climate change.

      This is but one piece of a large body of evidence suggesting quite strongly that the long-term multi-decadal trend in observed warming is not the result of purely natural causes.

      Curt, there are certainly issues in climate science that are unresolved. In the case of Climate-Gate the unresolved issues largely pertained to defining if the present time is the warmest time period in the last 400 years or the last 1000 years and that determination rested upon using different statistical analysis run over very large datasets spanning long-time series. The scientists were probably unethical in their treatment of the data and their statistical methodology. But whether the present-day is the warmest it has been in the last 400 years or the last 1000 years is immaterial to the fact that very recent human developments in technology and economic development have had the unfortunate side effect of significantly altering the planetary radiative balance through the accumulation of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere like carbon dioxide. Indeed, the physical laws governing the explanation for the observed changes in temperature and the globally altered weather patterns are well-established and the scientific theory of man-made climate change is a pretty solid scientific theory given even a basic understanding of physics and chemistry.

      Well, what about the climate change deniers out there? Well, just because people will insist the sky isn’t blue despite the visual evidence to the contrary doesn’t prevent the reasonable person from concluding that the vast majority of the evidence and the respected opinions of thousands of researchers scattered in many research institutions across the globe are to be weighed carefully. These views based upon fantastic research and careful conclusions should not be discounted so lightly based upon what some unscrupulous researcher(s) at the University of East Anglia did in regards to running a statistical analysis on data meant to answer a question immaterial to the main one you are disputing: are human activities contributing to observed and reasonably projected climate changes both now and in the near future? The answer to that question is an emphatic YES.

  4. geeteehe permalink
    January 31, 2010 11:01 am

    Dear Mr. Juch an Jehwy…

    I suggest you Google ClimateGate before you attack anyone. Man-made global warming is a complete fraud. It was dreamed up to TAX YOU. They want more of your money. Investigate for yourself instead of believing the corporate media that is controlled by the same people that control the IPCC. Oh, and justifying the IPCC with the Nobel Prize? Umm, Obama was awarded one and he drops bombs. Something tells me that ended the credibility of The Nobel Prize.

    And no, I am not a Republican. Far from it.

  5. jasonfreeman2000 permalink
    January 31, 2010 12:14 pm

    You are a joke! The science is overwhelming. Think about it on this level, who has more motivation? Why would thousands of scientists conspire to create a hoax? What is more likely, that a mega hoax was perpetrated to advance the liberal agenda, or big oil pays some scientists to fight the science? You probably think evolution is a theory too, don’t you. It is a shame that you ruin all the good will of winning the World Series for Boston by turning into a mouthpiece for the conservatives. Keep standing up for corporate greed, Curt, its noble work you are doing. Keep standing up for all the millionaires who want lower taxes. Keep peddling the nonesense that Republicans are fiscal conservatives. Look at the stats, Mr. Baseball, stats matter don’t they. 20 of the past 30 years Republicans control the White House which means they submit the budget. The only time the budget wasn’t increasing deficit was the last 4 years of Bill Clinton, yes with the help of a Republican congress, those were moderates. Eight years later, 6 of which had a republican congress and executive produced the largest expansion of government in history, 11 Trillion in National Debt (started by Reagan, the sacred cow who did no wrong, another joke). Wake up!!!! You are supporting the party of corporate greed. Look at the recent supreme court decision. Since when do corporations get freedom of speech protection? Does my dog get to vote now? Does my car? A corporation can’t vote, so why is it protected under the first amendment and how does that translate to them being able to spend without restriction to influence campaigns?

    Curt, after watching the World Series in 2004, you were a universally worshiped figure in Boston and New England. Then you decided to share with us that you side with the political movement that defines hypocracy. Less government, but we want to the Patriot Act to circumvent constitutionally guaranteed rights. Lower taxes at the expense of unfunded wars and massive deficits. Bi-Partisonship if that means we set the agenda, we make the rules and you go along with it. The party of SC. Lt. Governor Bauer who likens children who get reduced rate lunches to stray animals. I only wish you could be so honest. I mean really, where should the spending cuts come from to pay for the tax cuts that Bush gave out, welfare, education, and entitlements right. Never out of military spending, corporate subsidies and republican earmarks. Like Mitch McConnel’s 51 million in the Omnibus bill he voted against.

    I wonder if you will ever realize how insulting it is to the country where the median income is less than $50K, to say that you want lower taxes. The Republican philosphy of economics that Reagan imposed didn’t work then, didn’t work when Bush did it, and never works for working people. Working people who need Health Care reform, and thanks again for that. I hope Scot Brown votes for reform just to spite you. Working people need the deficit under control, not more tax cuts that increase deficits. And please, if you have the courtesy to respond, spare me the nonesense about Obama increasing deficit. He did what responsible leaders do, help the people. Average under educated Americans don’t understand that we would have been in bread lines if the banks weren’t saved. Save me the story that Bush had 54 months of economic growth, during which time we lost jobs and the growth was a mirage of Wall Street black magic, hence the situation we are in now. Save me the story about getting government out of the way, that works for millionaires like you who increase you wealth on the rising economy and don’t really feel the crash. Those of us at the bottom, struggling to finish college on loans (thank you Obama for making sure those weren’t cut off) and working 50 hours a week to make $600, barely pay rent and still have no health care, except $1700 in medical bills from a back spasm that enduced shock. That’s what our system is now, I went into shock from a back spasm and one ambulance ride, some pain meds and a taxi home costs $1700. And before you cite Tort reform as the reason cost is high, do some research. Without doing away with Fee for Service nothing will change. Thats whats so funny about this current health care bill, it didn’t even do half of what liberals want and the Republicans made it out to be single payer (I wish!!!).

    In short, YOU ARE A JOKE!!! You disgrace Boston fandum by wearing the Red Sox logo. Boston is a blue collar town and you are management. You are anti union, anti progress and a hyppocrite of the highest order. You played F’ing baseball for a living. You were born with a talent that most dream of having. Yeah, you worked hard, but never forget the opportunity you had, one that 99% of people will never get. Most people work hard everyday for their whole life and never come close to making what you made in half a season. Think about that when you are stumping the greediest people in the world. Think about that when you discredit scientists you have never met, and whose work you probably don’t understand. Think about that when you speak ill of President Obama, who actually came from nothing and rose to highest office in the world by doing honorable work and speaking up for those with no voice. A man who in his heart does what he thinks helps the most people, not who those people are.

    Do us all a favor and educate yourself, listening to you regurgitate the standard Republican bull**** makes me sick.

    • formerkcroyal permalink
      February 10, 2010 9:33 pm

      Just to get myself out of the closet….I played in MLB.
      (9 years with Rangers, WSox and Royals).

      I work with Durk Pearson. He was tested at an IQ level of 220 at MIT and took a triple major, triple minor. He worked on many space shots as a safety consultant and has patents on oil shale recovery and holograms….but big deal…..what would he know about global warming?

      Recently, he took me under his wing to show me a website that monitors sun spot changes. In a genius explanation which would be difficult for you bloggers to understand, he explained how earthings have more to fear from our planet getting colder rather than warmer. He said that the “warmers” were pulling one of the biggest hoaxes? of all-time.

      I vote for Durk….and Curt.


      • syphax permalink
        February 10, 2010 10:32 pm

        Hi formerkcroyal,

        I’m sure that Durk’s strong libertarian beliefs wouldn’t influence his interpretation of the science at all.

        I’d be very interested in Durk’s explanation. I only have an MS from MIT, so maybe I won’t understand, but try me.

        I’d also be interested in what Durk thinks the earth’s climate sensitivity is to a doubling of atmospheric CO2, and why. Mean and std. deviation. Was Arrhenius in on the hoax when he wrote his paper on CO2’s impact on climate in 1896?

        And what does Durk think the trend for solar insolation is for the next 1-200 years (did you notice that sunspot activity has picked up quite a bit after a slow 2009?). And what he thinks happens to earth’s climate systems when you suddenly raise the mean temperature 3 or more deg. C (over geologic time, 100-200 years is “suddenly”).

        The earth has been hotter before, and it’s been colder before. But the reality is, mean global climate has been fairly stable (+/- 1 deg C) over the time when humans went from hunters and gatherers to farmers and industrialists (the last 10k years). Maybe stability is good. It’s possible that suddenly kicking the system up a few deg C will lead to just wonderful results. Or, it could make the 1930’s dust bowl seem like a paradise.

        We’re running a global experiment where we don’t know the outcome. It’s a hell of a risk to take.

      • February 10, 2010 11:02 pm

        OK, not impressed by one guy with a high IQ opining on sunspots. That hardly deals with the question that climate change as we are observing it over the last decades and centuries (compared against nearly 1 million years of proxy data from oxygen isotope ratios stored in air bubbles deep within the ice sheets of Greenland and Antarctica) is most definitely the result of human industrial fossil fuel emissions altering the atmosphere’s chemistry and also the radiative balance of the planet at large.

        I have already mentioned in another post that solar insolation reaching the Earth’s surface has more or less been on a longer term decline. Yet, the temperature increases are hugely anomalous over the entire known paleoclimatic record stretching back almost 1 million years. If anything, you are making my argument supporting the already overwhelming evidnence in support of anthropogenic climate change even stronger.

    • February 10, 2010 11:36 pm

      I basically agree that the standard GOP lines are a bunch of crazy ideas put there by people who have worldviews incommensurate with a concern for the common good of American society and the general health and well-being of the largest proportion of the population. I consider myself a moderate to a moderate liberal with a strong pragmatic streak. That comes from a life dedicated to dedicated to sleuthing out evidence and forming judgments based upon logical interpretations of that evidence.

      The neoliberal phase of American growth founded on questionable credit growth, reckless financial behavior (because rules and incentives were misaligned favoring greed over prudence), a Federal Reserve system run by a chairman against regulation thanks to his slavish devotion to the barbaric Ayn Rand, and squeezing the middle class and working class Americans has run its course.

      If the country is to progress forward, we must make a fundamental break from the last 25-30 years of American foreign policy devoted to short-term corporate profit and total fealty to the titans of Wall Street investment banks. I would not consider myself opposed to capitalism in the slightest—I merely think that it should be tempered so that its energies more properly favor the common good.

      Curt, public figures such as yourself who have benefited so much from the hard won money of fans paying to watch you pitch big games should speak out for the little guy who has made you into the superstar that you have become.

      Moderate and moderately liberal views generally look out for the common good and show concern for the little guy.

  6. schilsham permalink
    January 31, 2010 7:55 pm

    I love how Schilling is this big conservative yet CLAIMS to care about people with ALS. In 2004 he campaigned for George Bush, the man who cut off public funding for stem cell research, one of the best chances for a cure for that and other diseases! I guess he cares about the less fortunate … when it doesn’t effect his tax cut! What a blowhard!

  7. syphax permalink
    January 31, 2010 11:27 pm

    Some context:

    – The science of man-made climate change goes back over 100 years. In 1896, Svante Arrhenius (Chemistry Nobel winner, 1903) wrote a paper called “On the Influence of Carbonic Acid in the Air upon the Temperature of the Ground”. The basis for his study was the heat-trapping attributes of gases like CO2, which Tyndall first figured out in the 1860’s. So, we’re talking about a pretty long conspiracy here (and Arrhenius was primarily interested in figuring out ice ages; at the time, man-made emissions weren’t projected to be significant for centuries).

    – The science behind the mechanics of climate change were done by Working Group 1 of the IPCC (their role: asses “the physical scientific aspects of the climate system and climate change.”). All of the crap that’s come out recently was from Working Group 2, which was responsible for “assesses the vulnerability of socio-economic and natural systems to climate change, negative and positive consequences of climate change, and options for adapting to it.” Now, it sucks that they threw some lame stuff in their part of the report, but let’s be precise. Screw-ups in WG2 don’t invalidate the stuff in WG1, which is the important stuff.

    – Let’s take Working Group 2, Chapter 10 of the IPCC report. That’s the one with the Himalayas stuff. That section has ~160 scientific references in there. 1 was the WWF paper, which shouldn’t have been in there. There might be 2-3 more bogus references. That leaves ~155 good ones. Similar story elsewhere; e.g. Chapter 2 of WG1 has over 600 references to real scientific papers.

    – Let me attack Curt Schilling the way shills and ideologues attack the IPCC:

    Curt Schilling is a terrible, untrustworthy pitcher. Did you know that he gave up 347 regular season home runs over the course of his career? And that he walked 711 batters? How can you trust a pitcher who is so wild and got taken deep so many times? This headhunter even hit 52 batters- no control at all. And he must have retired when he did because he was 2 hits away from giving up 3000 hits. 3000 hits for a batter usually gets you in the HoF- what does giving up 3000 hits get you?

    Did you know that Curt Schilling had 14 losses in 1998? And had losing records in: 1988, 1989, 1990, 1991, 1994, 1996, 2000, and 2003? Compare that to a real pitcher like Pedro Martinez, who went 0-1 in 1992 for LA, and 5-6 in 2008 when he was really injured.

    Did you know that Curt Schilling had seasons with ERAs of: 5.69, 6.23, and 9.82? 9.82!

    And do I even have to remind you of the time that Curt Schilling gave up 6 earned runs in 3 innings pitched in Game 1 of the 2004 ALCS against the Yankees? That was almost as bad as the time that he have up 6 earned runs in 6 1/3 innings in Game 1 of the 1993 World Series!

    Of course, anyone who knows much about baseball knows that the above is totally cherry-picked. I left out the 2o win seasons, 300 K seasons, 2004 ALCS Game 6, etc. The stuff that may well get Curt into the HoF.

    Similarly, anyone who knows much about climate science knows that the criticisms of the IPCC are similarly cherry-picked. There is *a lot* of good science summarized in IPCC AR4. And a little garbage.

    Unfortunately, the US has a lot more baseball fans than climate scientists.

    • February 10, 2010 11:12 pm

      Didn’t notice that you had already covered the same ground, and your analysis summarizing the IPCC Assessment Reports is truly pithy and comprehensive

  8. 38k010407 permalink
    February 1, 2010 3:30 pm

    It’s common sense. Anyone with a brain can see that global warming is just a big hoax to get more tax dollars. Where is Al Gore’s response to this? He won a Nobel prize for this BS theory and uses about 50 times more energy in his “homes” than most everyone. What a freakin’ joke!

    • February 10, 2010 11:13 pm

      OK, Al Gore winning a Nobel Prize and then cashing in on the climate science to speculate in obtuse financial products related to the green energy markets does NOT invalidate the science.

  9. koloradokid permalink
    February 3, 2010 1:56 pm

    I agree with you 1000% Curt! The left caught lying AGAIN!!

  10. February 10, 2010 11:14 pm

    In general, I get a little tired of good science being trashed and distorted by people who have little understanding or who do not want to gain an understanding of what professional scientists have been working on for well over a century going back to Arrhenius and Tyndall in the 19th century

  11. February 10, 2010 11:17 pm

    When it comes to climate science, think of the following analogy—-if I have prostate cancer I go to the expert on prostate cancer. I don’t go to a dermatologist, a cardiologist, or a gynecologist—even if they are brilliant. I go to the people who have a history of studying and engaging with a problem very deeply. So, I’d look at authoritative bodies like the IPCC for the big picture. There may be some errors in the IPCC—but small errors do not invalidate the fundamental scientific principles governing the climate. From an examination of observations and application of basic physics and chemistry, the fact that humans are causing climate change is awfully difficult to dispute. Intellectual honesty is really important if this society will face the daunting challenges that lie ahead.

  12. formerkcroyal permalink
    February 11, 2010 12:27 pm

    My earlier post—-

    “In a genius explanation which would be difficult for you bloggers to understand, he explained how earthlings have more to fear from our planet getting colder rather than warmer.”

    I did not post to act as an agent for Shill or Pearson…

    I met Durk in ’91…In the mid ’80’s, he (and wife Sandy Shaw) reported on the value of using arginine for the production of the nitric oxide molecule in their 1.5 million, NY Time best-seller, Life Extension, A Practical Scientific Approach.

    In ’98, Dr. Louis Ignarro (and 2 others) were given the Nobel for Medicine for their discovery of how nitric oxide acts as a signaling molecule in the cardiovascular system.

    Now—Dr. Ignarro endorses an arginine supplement through Herbalife. In music terms, he stole from Beethoven to make his “own” DVD…

    Hey, what’s the point ex-ballplayer?

    The next time that you post anything derogatory about Durk, please list your credentials/titles of your books. If you list anything on your list that shows how you have helped humanity with your “intelligence” close to what Durk has done, I may ask Durk if he would like to meet you.

    I heard many of you in the stands when I played. You like to take cheap shots at someone at the top of their profession because of your insecurities, jealousy, etc. You think that you are so intelligent that you could never be wrong.

    Send me your credentials (like I sent mine to you) or go back and hide behind your PhD in psychology.

    Here is my answer in advance to those of you who will respond to me in a negative manner without sending your credentials….

    Please, quit screaming at the umpire, the manager or…the “pitcher”.
    Get out of the stands and use your intelligence to really help someone.

    • syphax permalink
      February 12, 2010 10:38 am


      I’m not sure if it were my comments that hurt your feelings, or someone else’s.

      I re-read my post. I said nothing derogatory about Durk (or you). I merely wanted specific information other than “Durk is a really smart guy & he says AGW is a hoax.” That’s a logical fallacy called “appeal to authority.” If he’s done his homework, then he’d had no problem answering these questions, and if he trained you well, you should be able to handle them too.

      I have no doubt Durk is much smarter than me. So why do I not put much stock in his opinion on AGW, without hearing some specifics that support his opinion?

      Let me put it this way: Michael Jordan was (arguably) the greatest basketball player, ever. No one had his combination of drive, court vision, coordination, and athleticism. If I wanted to learn about basketball, I’d want to study and learn from Michael Jordan. But if I wanted to learn about baseball, I’d probably want to learn from someone else, like Curt Shilling, or you. For all his brilliance on the court, Michael Jordan was only a .200 hitter in AA. Even polymaths like Durk Pearson have their limits.

      If you want to play the credentials game, here are mine:
      Bachelor of Engineering, Dartmouth College, summa cum laude
      Academic All-Ivy, 1993, 1994
      M.S., Environmental Engineering, MIT
      MS Thesis: “Modeling buoyant droplet plumes in a stratified environment”

      There; you are one web search away from figuring out who I am. How about you?

  13. superjax permalink
    February 12, 2010 5:00 pm

    Mr. formerkcroyal,
    insofar as you require credentials to post negative replies to your posts, I’ll just cop to being one of the “little people” in the stands so beneath your condescending and elitist notice. In my capacity as just an average blogger, unschooled and left in slack-jawed amazement at your genius by proxy reflections and perspectives, let me opine that IQ isn’t quite the end all of measuring sticks. Between them, Ted Bundy and Charlie Manson added up to over a combined IQ of 260. If you throw in whatever Curt’s is with your buddy’s 220, that’d be pretty much in the same ballpark. 9 years playing for the Royals, huh? Does that count toward major league service time?

  14. formerkcroyal permalink
    February 21, 2010 8:58 pm

    Hey Syphax and Superjax (see below)…

    Syphax states….

    I’m not sure if it were my comments that hurt your feelings, or someone else’s.
    (last time I got offended by a stranger was when I was called out on strikes with a man on third…please!)

    I re-read my post. I said nothing derogatory about Durk (or you).

    “I’m sure that Durk’s strong libertarian beliefs wouldn’t influence his interpretation of the science at all.”
    (Do you need to support your position by dragging this into the discussion…please!)

    “I’d be very interested in Durk’s explanation. I only have an MS from MIT, so maybe I won’t understand, but try me.”
    (Kind of a childish comment from such an intelligent person…I have asked Durk to reply to your questions though.)

    And to my fan SuperJax—Are you related to Reggie?

    • superjax permalink
      February 23, 2010 3:09 pm

      Hey there formerkcroyal,
      nope, no relation to Reggie, though I did help influence his career. I was his drama coach for his part in Naked Gun: From The Files of Police Squad. “Must kill the Queen…must kill the Queen!”

  15. syphax permalink
    February 25, 2010 9:40 am


    I accused Durk of being human. For example:

    To social scientist and lawyer Don Braman, it’s not surprising that two people can disagree so strongly over science. Braman is on the faculty at George Washington University and part of The Cultural Cognition Project, a group of scholars who study how cultural values shape public perceptions and policy beliefs.

    “Basically the reason that people react in a close-minded way to information is that the implications of it threaten their values,” says Dan Kahan, a law professor at Yale University and a member of The Cultural Cognition Project.

    This goes both ways, of course. But I submit that most peoples’ views on climate science is strongly influenced by their world outlook. It’s very hard to get past initial biases. I know it’s a constant battle for me.

    As for my “childish comment”- let’s see, you kicked things off with “In a genius explanation which would be difficult for you bloggers to understand…” I think that if you start a meal by throwing food, maybe you’re not in a good position to criticize others’ table manners.

  16. formerkcroyal permalink
    February 25, 2010 5:53 pm

    Sorry SYPHAX…It was just the ballplayer coming out in me…

    Just because Don Denkinger made a bad call in the ’85 Series, it didn’t mean that all umps are bad….I should have said “most of you” bloggers.

  17. socalsoxman permalink
    February 26, 2010 6:05 pm

    I think syphax presents a good and valid perspective in the link on people’s attitudes and beliefs as to the issue of human caused climate change. People of both positive and negative persuasions to the issue are extremely passionate and pit bull-like in their opinions on the subject, and quick to brandish talking points like swords of certitude in debate or discussion about it.

    I happen to side with the camp that believes the preponderance of scientific observation conclusively demonstrates that the after-effect of man’s industrial activity is contributing to a rise in the global temperature gradient, the melting of polar ice and subsequent climatic stresses such as more prevalent violent storms and extremes of drought and record precipitation . I also believe that the other side of the argument denying this eventuality as disinformation is led and propped by the financial reserves of the carbon burning energy corporations, to protect their profit interests.

    So where and how do I come by these conclusions and beliefs? Just as I see global warming deniers as dupes and tools of the petroleum and coal interest propaganda campaign, I realize that in reality I am as equally influenced by the propaganda of those interest groups that I am more philosophically and politically aligned and comfortable with, propaganda being defined in this context as information slanted toward influencing mass opinion. It’s ironic that we as individuals slam and ridicule each other here on a message board over “beliefs” on global warming that have been shaped and ginned up by the mind shapers and fed to us through MSNBC, FOX, Limbaugh, or the New York Times out of the bitter general divide of the conservative/liberal philosophical dichotomy.

    It’s kind of funny, but people like Curt and formerkcroyal and his friend Durk will likely consistently bump heads with people like syphax and nycphilosopher and superjax across a spectrum of issues from big government vs. small government, taxes vs. entitlements, government run anything vs. the private sector, to the existence of human caused climate change. And they’ll do so with passion. But in reality all of us are so doing is something akin to the massed armies of infantry in Braveheart meeting and bashing each other in dim-realized mind-tweaked service under the banners and standards of the powerful lords and lieges looking keep their castle coffers full and the alligators in the moats well fed.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

38 Pitches

Curt Schilling's Official Blog

%d bloggers like this: