Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

Pagano joins republican U.S. House of Representatives Science, Space and Technology Committee staff as an advisor

61 views
Skip to first unread message

zencycle

unread,
May 17, 2018, 4:40:03 PM5/17/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Or so it would seem. Republican senator Mo Brooks of Alabama (of course) made a claim during a recent hearing on climate change, that the reason the sea level is rising is because of land subsidence - erosion of land mass displacing the water level.

"Every time you have that soil or rock or whatever it is that is deposited into the seas, that forces the sea levels to rise, because now you have less space in those oceans, because the bottom is moving up," Brooks said to witness Philip Duffy, president of the Woods Hole Research Center in Massachusetts and former senior adviser to the U.S. Global Change Research Program.

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2018/05/republican-lawmaker-rocks-tumbling-ocean-causing-sea-level-rise

(I really wish this was an onion article, alas, it is not).

Other attempts at denial were equally as laughable, such as Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX), who attempted to present evidence against sea level rise by showing tidal data from one measurement station on the entire planet.

"At one point, Smith showed a slide of two charts that he said demonstrated how the rate of sea-level rise does not equal the sharp spike in the consumption of fossil fuels. When Smith pointed out that rates of sea-level rise have only increased slightly compared with the rate of fossil fuel use, Duffy pointed out that his chart was from a single tide gauge station, near San Francisco, and that sea levels rise at different rates around the world. Smith did not show rising atmospheric CO2 levels or temperatures, both of which have climbed steadily in recent decades as emissions have increased."

It wouldn't be too hard to convince idiots like like Brooks and Smith that the universe revolves around the earth. Tony is likely missing a highly lucrative career as a science adviser to tea party politicians - because if they believe shit like this, they'll believe anything.

Burkhard

unread,
May 17, 2018, 5:05:02 PM5/17/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
Heureka!!! (now I have to get the thought of Sen LS running around with
a bath towel out of my mind)


T Pagano

unread,
May 18, 2018, 6:45:03 AM5/18/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
At least there is some correlation between between land erosion and sea
level (how ever tenuous). Zencycle criticizes Modern ID Theory by
offering secondary reports about the works of those who have written
nothing about modern ID Theory (Paley, Johnson). Who is the bigger
idiot: Brooks or Zencycle?

zencycle

unread,
May 18, 2018, 8:50:03 AM5/18/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Friday, May 18, 2018 at 6:45:03 AM UTC-4, T Pagano wrote:
>
> At least there is some correlation between between land erosion and sea
> level (how ever tenuous).

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

> Zencycle criticizes Modern ID Theory by
> offering secondary reports about the works of those who have written
> nothing about modern ID Theory (Paley, Johnson).

Sure, Johnson published his work six years before behe (while behe was still doing his research) but johnsons work wasn't contemporary to behe......So, we went from 'attemtps to link ID to religion fail without qualification', to 'no, no, I meant only behe and dembski'...to no, no, I meant only behe and dembskis research'....to 'no, no, I meant only _modern_ Id theory'....to now claiming that the guy publicly credited as being the father of modern ID theory actually said nothing about modern ID theory...

No matter how far you move the goalposts, you still can't keep from losing.

> Who is the bigger
> idiot: Brooks or Zencycle?

We know who the biggest IDiot of all is, it's the asshat that keeps promoting geocentrism and actually wrote "At least there is some correlation between between land erosion and sea level (how ever tenuous)." = Tony 'there are no american tanks in Baghdad' Pagano.


Mark Isaak

unread,
May 18, 2018, 12:30:03 PM5/18/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
If there is such a correlation, I expect it to be opposite what the
Republican senator thinks. First, erosion is increase by tectonic
uplift, which raises the level of land, not the sea. Second, natural
erosion helps sequester carbon dioxide from the atmosphere, cooling
global temperatures and allowing thicker ice caps than there would be
without it.

Besides, most erosion is man-made. Notwithstanding the idiocy of
Brooks' claim, he is still saying that humans cause sea level rise.

> Zencycle criticizes Modern ID Theory by
> offering secondary reports about the works of those who have written
> nothing about modern ID Theory (Paley, Johnson). Who is the bigger
> idiot: Brooks or Zencycle?

Up until then it was neck and neck between Brooks and Pagano which is
the bigger idiot. Now Pagano wins by bringing the worthlessness of ID
into the picture.

--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) curioustaxonomy (dot) net
"I think if we ever reach the point where we think we thoroughly
understand who we are and where we come from, we will have failed."
- Carl Sagan

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 18, 2018, 12:55:03 PM5/18/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 18 May 2018 10:43:15 GMT, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:

>...Modern ID Theory...

You keep using that term. Bet you can't state a precis in
your own words...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Martin Harran

unread,
May 18, 2018, 2:05:03 PM5/18/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:54:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Fri, 18 May 2018 10:43:15 GMT, the following appeared in
>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>
>>...Modern ID Theory...
>
>You keep using that term. Bet you can't state a precis in
>your own words...

Actually, he can probably do that, albeit with a little bit of
fudging.

The question he really needs to address is what is the difference
between "modern" ID, which he supports, and the original ID espoused
by Johnson whom he now disowns.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 19, 2018, 12:55:02 PM5/19/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Fri, 18 May 2018 19:00:03 +0100, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
<martin...@gmail.com>:

>On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:54:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 10:43:15 GMT, the following appeared in
>>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>>
>>>...Modern ID Theory...
>>
>>You keep using that term. Bet you can't state a precis in
>>your own words...
>
>Actually, he can probably do that, albeit with a little bit of
>fudging.

Possibly. But if accurately stated it would clearly show
that it's not a scientific theory at all, which it isn't.

>The question he really needs to address is what is the difference
>between "modern" ID, which he supports, and the original ID espoused
>by Johnson whom he now disowns.

Good question. And like all good questions to Tony which
invoke "inconvenient facts", history says it will be
ignored.

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 22, 2018, 1:15:03 PM5/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:50:51 -0700, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:

>On Fri, 18 May 2018 19:00:03 +0100, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
><martin...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:54:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 10:43:15 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>>>
>>>>...Modern ID Theory...
>>>
>>>You keep using that term. Bet you can't state a precis in
>>>your own words...
>>
>>Actually, he can probably do that, albeit with a little bit of
>>fudging.
>
>Possibly. But if accurately stated it would clearly show
>that it's not a scientific theory at all, which it isn't.
>
>>The question he really needs to address is what is the difference
>>between "modern" ID, which he supports, and the original ID espoused
>>by Johnson whom he now disowns.
>
>Good question. And like all good questions to Tony which
>invoke "inconvenient facts", history says it will be
>ignored.

And history is once more shown to be predictive...

Martin Harran

unread,
May 22, 2018, 1:50:03 PM5/22/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 22 May 2018 10:14:45 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Sat, 19 May 2018 09:50:51 -0700, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>:
>
>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 19:00:03 +0100, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by Martin Harran
>><martin...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 09:54:39 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 18 May 2018 10:43:15 GMT, the following appeared in
>>>>talk.origins, posted by T Pagano <notmya...@dot.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>...Modern ID Theory...
>>>>
>>>>You keep using that term. Bet you can't state a precis in
>>>>your own words...
>>>
>>>Actually, he can probably do that, albeit with a little bit of
>>>fudging.
>>
>>Possibly. But if accurately stated it would clearly show
>>that it's not a scientific theory at all, which it isn't.
>>
>>>The question he really needs to address is what is the difference
>>>between "modern" ID, which he supports, and the original ID espoused
>>>by Johnson whom he now disowns.
>>
>>Good question. And like all good questions to Tony which
>>invoke "inconvenient facts", history says it will be
>>ignored.
>
>And history is once more shown to be predictive...

R.A.T. (Run Away Tony)

Bob Casanova

unread,
May 23, 2018, 1:15:03 PM5/23/18
to talk-o...@moderators.isc.org
On Tue, 22 May 2018 18:47:20 +0100, the following appeared
That's the one...
0 new messages