How to hold ‘incredibly nuanced’ views in archaeology and firmly shallow ones in climatology

There are some very sophisticated pissants in the climate game.

Michael Tobis, a funded climate activist, dismissed a couple of archeologists for their ideas. Tobis did not like their approach and compared it to the climate skeptics’. At once an urbane commenter, who happened to be watching the conversation, became very agitated and incredulous.

You can criticize someone, disagree with them or even call them names. But to compare them to climate skeptics…,how could you crudely disparage someone like that?

Advertisements

4 comments

  1. Eddy

    Thanks for the link Shub. I found the debate interesting. It was very strange how the peer reviewed lit and the proffesorial status suddenly didnt count for much. Ironic, in spades.

  2. Chuckles

    Shub, The word ‘sophisticated in the first sentence is unwarranted. Several years of close study have unearthed absolutely no evidences of this. Quite the opposite, in fact. They are merely pissants…if not another planet altogether.
    Your last para reminded me of this story –

    A young physicist, upon learning that he was denied tenure after six productive years at a University in San Francisco, requested a meeting with the Provost for an explanation, and a possible appeal.

    At the meeting, the Provost told the young physicist, “I’m sorry to tell you that the needs of the University have shifted somewhat, during the past six-years leading up to your tenure decision. In point of fact, what we now require is a female, condensed-matter experimentalist. Unfortunately, you are a male, high-energy theorist!”

    Dejected but not defeated, the young physicist thought for a moment about the implications of the Provost’s words. “Sir,” he said, “I would be willing to convert in two of the three categories you mention, but. .. I’ll never agree to become an experimentalist!”

    🙂

  3. Shub Niggurath

    I found the whole thing ironic at several levels. Here we have, a journalist arguing with all his might that scientists who produce nit-picky icky bits and pieces of evidence against a coherent, monolithic theory ( of Jared Diamond) have to be taken seriously. If you don’t, you are as evil as the climate skeptics. The very skeptics he criticizes at every opportunity for producing nit-picky icky bits of evidence against a monolithic theory of anthropogenic global warming.