Greg bin Laden is once again full of shit

Greg bin Laden, living up to his Obamiac mindset, is full of shit when he claims climate change is not accelerating. I've written about the James Hansen news myself, and climate change Obamiacs like Michael Mann and Katharine Hayhoe are full of shit. I said at that link that I would take Hansen over Mann any time.

Bin Laden, as a #BlueAnon librul, doesn't want to listen to "doomers" because they challenge how much we REALLY have to do on this issue and he doesn't want to hear that. And he IS that, per my old piece about him and "wife" Stephanie Zvan, over Assange, that made both of them go ballistic.

We now have data that indicate global warming within climate change may be speeding up.

Fuck off. 

False rape has real victims, too, #FtB folks

Note: This post will be updated from time to time, to note some specific claims.

Is Julian Assange the victim of a false rape claim, possibly over politics? Was Dominique Strauss-Kahn, very possibly over money?

I don't know. But, because rape is a serious crime, so are false rape claims.

And, sometimes, it may be over an even more ludicrous reason: fame.

Here's another false rape claim, admitted to by the false claimant, a former New York City TV weatherwoman Heidi Jones. Sad. And a reminder that while rape is a serious crime ... for that very reason, so is a false rape claim. Especially when driven by possible attempts to reclaim fame (this case?) for money (possibly in the Dominique Strauss-Kahn case?) or for political or other motives (just barely possible in the Assange case?).

And, another!

Once again, college people, too much drinking, some sort of sexual activity, problematic memory, and a rape claim that didn't play out, at least against the person in the spotlight. Once again, social justice warriors, maybe start your focus on ... alcohol? And, as for motive? SJW folks, this one's clear on at least a possible motive. Monetary payout from a presumed first-round NFL draft pick.

As for false accusations in general, whatever the motive? They happen. I'm not saying they happen often, but they clearly happen. Per the headline, need I remind you of the Duke lacrosse team?

Or, maybe they DO happen kind of often. And, for all the reasons above and more. More below the fold, with details on how about one-quarter of claims don't pan out (U.S.) and almost 10 percent are deliberately false (U.K.) More below the fold.

Gnu Atheists, hypocrisy, irony, petards and train wrecks

All of those items in the header are coming together at the "premier" blog site for Gnu Atheists, Freethought Blogs.

A blogger booted for attacking another blogger there, then whining about it on Google+. (Greg Laden two years ago, over #arsenicgate and my telling him that NASA had good budgetary and other reasons to engage in PR fluffery, threatened to have me "banned from the Internet.) Whine away, Greg. Hear that petard hoisting?

Meanwhile, your "wife," Stephanie Zvan, has an interesting dilemma. Support her "husband" and voluntarily quit FtB herself, or support the #skeptatheistchick movement and stay? (I had my first run-in  with her over the Julian Assange accuser(s) and her unwillingness to look at this through anything other than a 12th-wave feminism position.)

And next? Some sort of thought policing, I guess, as FtB cofounder Ed Brayton notes here: 

Other changes are in the works as well, mostly out of the view of the public — new rules, new policies, new ways to make decisions that I hope will avoid these kinds of unpleasant situations in the future.

No details from Ed, just that it's going to be more top-down. Well, we have long known that his co-founder, P.Z. Myers, is far from being a denizen of free thought on his blog, and that goes beyond banning people who threaten him, which is another thing. The longer he's been at this, the narrower his tolerance range has become, I think.

Speaking of PZed, it looks like his tolerance there has definitely narrowed. There's your train wreck, to the degree it's true. The 4Chan types hitting Freethought Blogs. This all connects, at least indirectly, to #skeptatheistchick issues; see below.

Now, talking about 4chan may be dumb, but it wasn't that dumb, and it wasn't like Justin deliberately invited them over to comment.

Meanwhile, said Justin shows the email by Laden that led to Laden's downfall. Yep, threatening someone's job, even worse than threatening to ban them from the Net, will get you in trouble.

Meanwhile, video blogger Thunderf00t got himself banned for other exercise of free thought, even if it was kind of stupid.

Soon enough, Justin will probably challenge something too much, along similar lines and he'll be the next to get the book. 

And, before that, there was PZ and the #skeptatheistchick meme, and lack of free thought. Already a week ago, Rebecca Watson, #skeptatheistchick High Holy Priestess herself, had distorted what at least one non-FtB blogger, Coffee Skeptic, had said about her, Tweeted that to thousands of her Twit followers, then refused to correct the error, which had gotten picked up by P.Z. He then refused to let the blogger comment on his blog. There was childishness on both sides, but more of it on his. (Shock me. And shock me that P.Z. ain't going to provide the backstory.)

And, I'm far from the only person to wonder if Ed knew modern Urban Dictionary-type definitions of "loosey-goosey" before he used the phrase to describe his original plans for FtB. Given the #skeptatheistchick fun (and should that be spelled without a final "K"?) and 12th-wave feminism, etc., it's laughably ironic as hell.

Beyond that, I had, more seriously, at one time wanted to cut Ed more slack and blame FtB's problems more on P.Z. That said, I don't think that's quite such the case any more.

All of this reminds me what a good online friend once said at Google+: He'd like to see people in the sweet spot Venn diagram intersection of atheism, "scientific" skepticism, and all-around liberalism. Unfortunately, we don't have a group blog site anywhere like that, and not just at FtB.

I'm not wading further into the cesspool at this time, other than firing a random potshot like this.

Let me just say, as I've said before, that this is proof positive that atheism in general and Gnu Atheism in particular is no guarator of superior morals, superior intelligence or superior everyday common sense.

Ever since Dan Dennett invented the word "brights" for metaphysical naturalists and then lied (you did, Dan) about how that wasn't meant to imply religious people were "stupids," Gnu Atheism, sometimes on matters small, sometimes otherwise, has proven the three points above, plus has shown just as much tendency and ability to shoot itself in the foot as anybody else.

We'll have a Gnu Atheist sexual abuse scandal eventually, too, folks. It will happen.

Update: The fun gets funner. John Loftus thinks that Ed Brayton, P.Z. Myers and the smaller fry want to read him pontificate. John, they don't. It's called "buy a clue." Write about it in your next book.

Update 2: Loftus and his amazing "why am I not in Wikipedia" ego still don't get it, as, while bashing with the one side of his mouth, he still presents himself as the savior with the other.

Take THAT Greg Laden on #arsenicgate and NASA

Well, well, well. It looks like NASA researchers claims of about a year ago to have found new, arsenic-based life just might not be so true!


Rosie Redfield, who was one of the initial leaders in the charge against the claims, said her follow-up research of the original project has found no such life form.


But now, Felisa Wolfe-Simon has said she wants to see Redfield's claims peer-journal published:

“We do not fully understand the key details of the website experiments and conditions. So we hope to see this work published in a peer-reviewed journal, as this is how science best proceeds.”

Sounds like a red herring deal to me. Redfield was doing peer research on the original claims. And, while her refutation isn't ironclad, it's good enough; per Carl Sagan, the burden's clearly on Wolfe-Simon now.


And, on NASA to fess up to just how shoddy  this was, as I originally blogged.

And on Greg Laden, to admit he was touting shoddy science, and being unskeptical in refusing to consider NASA had "good" PR reasons for its fluffery.

But, given his response to my comment on Google +:

Are you fucking serious? Is Steve Snyder Socratic Gadfly?

I probably shouldn't hold my breath.

Meanwhile,speaking of G+, other respondents to Phil Plait's post on the matter seem to take a he said, she said stance to this. Maybe some *want* real exolife like arsenic-based life to exist. I would love something like this to pan out, but, given what we saw from the moment Wolfe-Simon published, got fluffed by NASA, got defensive, and didn't apparently do follow-up on her own, including not clearly and fully addressing early concerns of the likes of Redfield, these people are riding the wrong horse for their hopes, and, in taking that he said, she said angle, not addressing the Sagan "extraordinary concerns" angle.

#ArsenicGate updated

It's now clearer than ever that NASA's hyping of some alleged arsenic-based life several months ago (with arsenic allegedly replacing phosphorus) was a big PR hype by NASA, as this extended piece shows. See page 3 to get the details on NASA's PR blitz. On page 4, NASA tries to justify this:

Because NASA is dependent for funding on Congress, and therefore its constituents, it needs to project an ongoing sense of relevance. But the agency also needs to maintain its scientific credibility. The controversy over GFAJ-1 demonstrates the risks inherent when a scientific institution assumes a media role. NASA’s publicity blitz created expectations that weren’t matched by the paper’s data, and this vastly amplified the criticism that followed.

Dwayne Brown, the NASA spokesman, has said that the agency is comfortable with how it handled the affair, particularly the use of the term “extraterrestrial life.” In a story posted on the Embargo Watch blog, he said, “It’s easy to play Monday morning quarterback. However, the statement was accurate. The real issue is that the reporting world has changed because of the Internet/bloggers/social media, etc. A ‘buzz’ term like ET will have anyone with a computer putting out anything they want or feel. NASA didn’t hype anything—others did.”

I stand by what I first said about this, re Congressional funding. With the end of the shuttle, and Congressional GOPers in a budget-cutting mood, NASA needed a "splash." So, it created one.

And, while not all of the PR hype was directly or indirectly lead scientist Felisa Wolfe-Simon's fault, much of it was. I do feel sorry that NASA and the overseers of the research group she was in at the time have made her a scapegoat; but, she bought her ticket months before the official announcement.

Hey, Greg Laden? Still buying the NASA company line?

Hat tip to my friend Leo Lincourt for the story link.

Will charges against Assange split feminism?

I can only but 100 percent agree with Australian website Crikey, and against at least a certain subgroup of gender feminists such as Stephanie Zvan (and, in her case, apparent in thrall boyfriend Greg Laden) on this issue.

These moves are evidence of the situation your correspondent suggested in Crikey yesterday — that the Assange case is proving to be the final process by which the second-wave feminist coalition formed in the late 1960s splits substantially, with feminists with differing attitude to Western state power finding themselves on different sides of the debate.

Given that this certain subgroup of gender feminists appears intent on making the apparent but not necessarily actual charges against Assange, and absolute support of them, a litmus or purity test, yes, it could well split feminists — especially if one of the two original complainants is backing off.

So, has Ardin been brainwashed by some portion of the patriarchy? Has Counterpunch's Matrix hero gotten to her with the patrio-matrix? Did the patriarchy spirit her out of Sweden? If Anna Ardin is indeed not cooperating with Swedish authorities, and is not even in the country, isn't that because she fears a patriarchial Swedish government, not Julian Assange? (And I can get snarkier.)

And, while Laden claims that he does think the U.S. government is out to get Assange, he also, judging by his animus against Assange, might not necessarily think that's bad.

(By the way Ms. Zvan, the claim that this two-day-old when you linked it Guardian story proves he was charged in a legal sense does no such thing; the reporter uses "charge" and "allegations" interchangeably. You're obviously blinded by your fundamentalism.)

Scratch Greg Laden from the critical thinkers list

I used to browse him on ScienceBlogs from time to time, but, over the NASA fake exobiology story, and now, over (under the influence of his attack dog Stephanie Zvan, I believe) Julian Assange, he's lost me ... and lost "it."

First, the NASA story and his response.

Slate has an excellent article about how NASA has sponsored not-so-good science AND blown the media coverage issues. And, at least one professor says NASA had motive for this fluffery. But, because of the reason for that motive, it could well backfire:

Some scientists are left wondering why NASA made such a big deal over a paper with so many flaws. "I suspect that NASA may be so desperate for a positive story that they didn't look for any serious advice from DNA or even microbiology people," says John Roth of UC-Davis. The experience reminded some of another press conference NASA held in 1996. Scientists unveiled a meteorite from Mars in which they said there were microscopic fossils. A number of critics condemned the report (also published in Science) for making claims it couldn't back up. And today many scientists think that all of the alleged signs of life in the rocks could have just as easily been made on a lifeless planet.

I didn't think so much about that as budgetary motives, but it makes sense. No big news from Mars probes for a while. Obama announces budget cuts and mission changes. The next planned shuttle flight keeps getting shoved back.

Yep, that's motive.

First, contra the breathlessness, at Gizmodo AND elsewhere — don't tell me that just because Gizmodo isn't a science site, that NASA had nothing to do with "framing." The evidence for that is becoming more and more clear, despite someone like Greg Laden at Scienceblogs, an unrepentant fluffer here and here. That said, Greg's definitely lost credibility in my eyes over this issue.

But, per the first of his linked blog posts:

I've asked for specific critiques of the NASA press release and have received one, which makes a good suggestion but hardly demonstrates that NASA lied or cheated or flim flamed.

You, on the other hand, are quickly making it onto my list.

I never said, myself, that NASA "lied or cheated." I didn't use the phrase "flim flamed" [sic] for its fluffery, either. But, if that's what you think fluff PR for apparently shoddy science should be called, OK!

And, ooohhhh, I'm on your "list"!

The New York Times and Phil Plait both also, among others, seem to have gotten a bit breathless.

The Guardian has an excellent roundup of NASA's dissing of all the skeptics and naysayers. Again, fluffers ... more skepticism!

Update, Dec. 9:More yet on the NASA fluffery angle:

Here's proof of the fluffery - the hed on NASA's annoucement:
"Get Your Biology Textbook...and an Eraser!"

Fact is, as P.Z. Myers, Wikipedia and many other sites noted, arsenic replacing phosphorus in organic compounds, albeit much simpler ones than DNA, isn't even new. As for it actually doing so in DNA, well, the trumpeted NASA experiment doesn't necessarily prove that.

And, NASA's PR machine is still going, in this wire story that connects the iffy experiment to discovery of more habitable planets and more stares:

Meanwhile, more motive for NASA to trumpet itself? Perhaps worries about the successful orbital flight of SpaceX's Dragon. though NASA was kind enough to offer congratulations.

Remember, getting back to the budgetary motive angle, Obama has talked about leaning more on private services to head to the space station.

====

Next, he (and Stephanie) on Assange's arrest.

Here's the bottom line there — Laden's credulity on the U.S. government wanting to corral Assange meets up with incredible legal naivete and sloppy thinking:

Perhaps being arrested is not the same as being charged, but really, at this point this is just a semantic game. Yawn.

Whoa .... just whoa ....

If that's his thinking level, and communications concerns level, no wonder he "bit" so readily on the NASA story, and refuses to admit he was wrong.

More in this new Assange post on how Greg is a "word-snake" who likes to slither away from his own statements, especially when he gets busted.

Beyond that, his sense of humor is puerile.

Oh, and he is now threatening to go after my ISP:

Failure to adhere to these rules may lead to your permanent banning from this blog, and if you don't adhere to that, you will be banned from the entire internet.

Dude. Thin-skinned, are we?

And, his friend Stephanie, I am guessing from her response, will claim any and all information about false rape reporting is suspect; I think she's seeing this as a litmus test for gender feminism, or, at least, her particular version of it. And, I'll be glad to fail that one.

Updated, Dec. 11: Ugh. Being a SciBlogs reader doesn't guarantee critical thinking. Two of Laden's posts related to ArsenicGate are in readers' top-five list.