Astrology - The Left’s Creationism?

Does the Left have a segment of their base that believes a certain pseudo-science, a segment their leaders are reluctant to antagonize? Is astrology quietly acceptable within the “progressive” community? The Left takes great pleasure in bashing Republican Creationists and ID advocates (quite appropriately, and I join them in this, as my readers know).

Jerome Armstrong’s own words below suggested this. Just like there is some overlap, a nexus between Republican politics, fundamentalist Christianity, and Creationism, Jerome’s words prompt the analogous question: What is the overlap, the nexus between Democratic politics, New Age thinking, Birkenstocks, Astrology, bikram yoga, Gaia believers .. you know .. “crunchy granolas?” Do I have to go on a trademarked PZ Myers’ style rant about the dangers of pseudo-science invading our political processes?

I don’t recall reading PZ Myers, DarkSyde, Ed Brayton (major “Oops” here. Ed corrects me: ” I have nothing at all to do with Democratic politics.” My apologies.), or Brent Rasmussen denouncing astrologists. Let me be clear. I seriously doubt that Markos sent out a “dummy up on the astrology-bashing” to his apparatchiks. Almost certainly the Left’s “Defenders of Science” simply haven’t perceived astrology as a threat. Okay, let me put it on your radar screen. An advisor to a serious Democratic presidential candidate is an astrologer, as well as an admitted stock swindler. 29% of Americans believe in astrology. I think a little distancing would be in order, from the Left’s “Defenders of Science.” (If they have in the past, I’d be delighted to correct this post.) Update: Nor do I suggest that any of these guys “buy into astrology,” rather it has been perhaps unimportant and inconvenient to take a stand on. “Why rock the boat? We’ve got the granolas on board …”

2nd Update: Prompt posts that display real integrity on this issue from PZMyers and Brent Rasmussen. Along with his usual overdose of personal and childish invective, Myers documents his previous denunciations of astrology. Fair enough. DarkSyde contents himself with “Bush is worse,” and declines to exercise his much-ballyhooed independence at dKos’ front page by denouncing astrology there.
Or maybe astrology is just one of “several different predictive mathematical disciplines?”

Over at Greenwald’s blog commenter Jay Ackroyd is okay with Astrology:

I am still curious, Commissar, why you regard Jerome’s apparent religious beliefs an item of concern. Belief in astrology is no more well-founded than believing in any other supernatural phenomenon, but such beliefs are very widely held. As is belief in astrology, for that matter. Horoscopes run in most daily papers.

And, one more thing, Jerome, … we didn’t evolve from monkeys. Nor is your cousin your grandfather. Humans and monkeys evolved from a common primate ancestor. (If anyone thinks this is nit-picking, I encourage you to imagine what PZ Myers would say about a Republican stock-swindling pseudo-science-swilling senior political operative who displayed such ignorance — it would be a fate too terrible to contemplate, I assure you.)

MyDD

Another Update [2006-6-25 14:13:39 by Jerome Armstrong]: Oh yea, on the astrological stuff. I have done the new age type things over the years—life’s never boring that way. Down that line, I dabbled with planets and predictions in the most abstract manner, as one of several different predictive mathematical disciplines, when coming out of finances and into politics during my early blogging days (nobody is surprised that remembers the early 2001 days here), and since then have completely tapered out of it over time. So yea, the cons got me on this one being a little out of the ordinary… It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy. But hey, like JP Morgan once said, “millionaires don’t use astrology, billionaires do!” I hope to see those wingnuts that are obsessed with every little thing I do at the next bikram yoga or vipassana meditation session in DC– but fair warning that I believe we evolved from monkeys!

Here are a couple more Leftie politics/astrology sites of interest:

HPLeft: About HPLeft

HPLeft represents an attempt to define an entirely new position within the political spectrum. Since the 1960s, a revolution in consciousness has taken place in America. This revolution was spurred by the widespread dissemination of: a) the spiritual literature and practices of India, China, Japan, Africa and Native America; b) the transpersonal psychology of Carl Jung, Roberto Assagioli and Stanislav Grof; c) the cross-cultural mythological perspective of Joseph Campbell and others; d) the continued emergence of non-denominational, spiritually-based recovery programs like Alcoholics Anonymous; e) the return from obscurity of wisdom technologies such as astrology; f) and, the embrace of whole-person and non-traditional approaches to physical well-being. But, to this day, the implications of this ongoing revolution have yet to have much of an impact on the political landscape here in America. I think it’s time we changed that situation.

HPLeft: Political and social commentary with its head in the clouds, but its feet planted firmly on the ground.

Democracy Cell Project

# Earth Day and global warming - Matt Carnicelli’s “The Tao of Politics” April 17th article discussed the urgent need for environmentally-friendly renewable sources of energy because “while protection of the environment is every nation’s duty, it must be a paramount concern of the global leader.” We also spent some of our “Five Minutes A Day on Democracy” writing letters to editors about how the energy bill that was discussed in Congress on Thursday and Friday provides too many subsidies for the most polluting energy sources and does little to promote overall energy conservation.

Update: A blogger at Ezra Klein is very uncomfortable with Armstrong’s internet stock-swindling background:

Maybe Kos is just another gullible Bluepoint investor who trusts and admires Jerome, and is buying an internet stock for a lot more than it’s worth, on Jerome’s recommendation. We ought to be suspicious of pro-Warner comments Kos makes in the future. You don’t just have to beware the guy who’s willing to mislead you for financial gain — you have to beware the guy who listens to him.

Trackbacks & Pings

  1. Pharyngula on 26 Jun 2006 at 1:26 pm

    Astrology? Give me a break….

    Well, I’ve never followed this “Jerome” fellow’s stuff at MyDD, with the recent accusations that he may have done some dubious things in the stock market and was a promoter of astrology, but the Commissar thinks I’m going easy on……

  2. A Blog Around The Clock on 26 Jun 2006 at 5:25 pm

    Comissar in the Seventh House…

    There is a whole slew of responses to this silly post by Comissar/ It is a typical effort to make “balance” between Left and Right in order to make the Right appear more palatable, …or palatable at all. The typical……

  3. lolife on 26 Jun 2006 at 5:32 pm

    Not Too Well Thought Out…

    This article, Astrology - The Left’s Creationism?, has a title that says it all. Utter inane nonsense. First of all, while the Left certainly has people who believe in astrology and creationism, they don’t want it taught in school. They have minds ca…

  4. LeatherPenguin » Putting the “Moon” in Moonbat? on 27 Jun 2006 at 7:19 am

    […] Astrology - The Left’s Creationism? at The Politburo Diktat Filed under: Politics and Moonbats Comments: […]

Comments

  1. creepy dude wrote:

    The Left’s creationism?

    Don’t forget the most politically powerful astrology-nut ever was Nancy Reagan, who scheduled the great one’s appearances based on the signs.

  2. commissar wrote:

    Creepy dude,

    “Our astrologers aren’t as bad as your astrologers?” Nope. The Left, esp. the blogosphere have made a major issue of the Republican “War on Science.”

    Then they gotta be squeaky clean on that.

    As for, “Do Republicans denounce Creationists and pseudo-scientists?” … This one does.

  3. canuckistani wrote:

    I hesitate to speak for the political convictions of Phil Plait (The Bad Astronomer/ http://www.badastronomer.com), but he is a good source of debunking of astrologers, creationists, nuts and flakes of all political stripes. Although I am, by American standards, a liberal, I would rather see a rational conservative government with a strong belief in reason and science than a government run by leftist astrology kooks. But we on the left are not all nuts, and the conservative parties in North America are far too beholden to the religious right. I think the odds are much higher that my children will be subjected by law to the morality of a religion I do not endorse than that they will be forced to cast a horoscope at the beginning of each school day.

  4. canuckistani wrote:

    D’oh! That should be
    http://www.badastronomy.com
    Apologies.

  5. DarkSyde wrote:

    You’re kidding right? LOL, I hereby denounce astrology. I think it’s an arcane pseudoscience that has roots in equally silly mysticism. And it’s not even very entertaining–although it is kinda funny when someone takes it too seriously. I once dated a girl who did that and she was pretty funny about it.

    Why would you even consider that Brent, PZ, or mself would buy into it?

  6. commissar wrote:

    Booooo! Boooooooooo! Boooooo!

    C’mon, DarkSyde. I didn’t say you guys bought into astrology, and you know it.

    Now, as for denouncing it here in the comment thread on (what Sharoney called) my little tiny blog .. HA! … Distinctly not good enough.

    Try a front page piece at dKos on Science Friday. I’m sure you have castigated Creationists there at least ten times. Give it to the astrologers … just once. This week. You know, while it’s a hot topic. : ) You have total independence; Markos gives you free rein, full control, etc. etc. etc. Right?

    I denounce astrology” here on TPD comments. I’m still laughing. That’s like whispering in a small room in your house, at night, by yourself.

  7. John the Marine wrote:

    The question for DarkSyde (and other left wing champions of Science) isn’t whether he believes in Astrology, or whether he denounces it as psuedo science (clearly he thinks it is as silly as the rest of us do). The question is: Whether he denounces the idiots on the left who; believe in it and base their political beliefs and decisions on it, in the same way he does creationists? Just curious.

  8. Brent Rasmussen wrote:

    Hi Commissar!

    Poor man’s trackbacks. :)

    http://brentrasmussen.com/log/node/750

  9. PZ Myers wrote:

    Nor do I suggest that any of these guys “buy into astrology,” rather it has been perhaps unimportant and inconvenient to take a stand on. “Why rock the boat? We’ve got the granolas on board …”

    No, you just suggest that astrology is “quietly acceptable within the ‘progressive’ community”.

    And to suggest that I am reticent about antagonizing the “granolas” is absurd — I’m the guy who happily kicks the majority Christian delegation in their complacent butts, remember?

  10. Samurai Sam wrote:

    I’m sure there’s a segment of the Left that does believe in astrology. However, it’s nowhere near as large nor as influential as the fundamentalist Christian segment of the Right. I don’t really think the magic crystal, tarot card, candle spell segment requires a prominent spokesperson to debunk their silliness.

    By the way, I believe you’re misreading Jerome on the “we came from monkeys” comment. I’m fairly certain he was being facetious…

  11. gawker wrote:

    What is with this moral equivalence between denouncing creationism and denouncing astrology? There are no left-wing astrologers trying to influence school curriculums. Nor were there any left-wing astrologers at any time trying to inject their beliefs into government policy-making.

  12. the valrus wrote:

    The question is: Whether he denounces the idiots on the left who; believe in it and base their political beliefs and decisions on it, in the same way he does creationists? Just curious.

    Ridiculous analogy. No one’s trying to get astrology taught in schools, or to push it on anyone, far as I know. It’s bullshit, of course, but the best example of its influence is that it’s next to the comics section in the paper. Give me a break.

  13. commissar wrote:

    My visitors from Pharyngula are unanimous: “Our pseudo-scientists are not as bad as your pseudo-scientists.”

    and, oh yes, “Nancy Reagan … Nancy Reagan .. Nancy Reagan”

  14. dgbellak wrote:

    Where is slightest shred of evidence that shows any degree of broad acceptance of astrology on the “Left”? The Ackroyd quote in no manner says that Jay is “okay” with it. Rather, it shows that he questions your ethical consistency, and with good reason it appears. Your other links do not support a link with astrology per se, merely a fringe association with myriad spirituality. Fruit loops, the lot of them, though you may consider them representative of something if you wish, I suppose.

    You don’t recall reading denuciations of astrology from a host of bloggers, and the first one you cite (or actually, not-cite, since you’re claiming the opposite of substance, which is an odd thing to attempt to prove) is, of all people, PZ Myers? Have you ever read so much as a single post at his site? That man has never met a faith, no matter how mainstream or obscure, that he couldn’t or wouldn’t attack head on.

    Wow. Yet another completely delusional blog. This stuff is about to turn me off from the whole medium.

  15. canuckistani wrote:

    Commissar-

    Allow me to quote you on the subject of a comparison you made between astrology and creationism on brentrasmussen.com:

    One is an arguably harmless view of what happened a gazillion years ago, the other is used to predict the future and set policy.

    When the Democratic Party runs on an avowed platform of teaching astrology in astronomy classes so that children can learn the controversy, then we’ll be looking at some equivalence. Sure, there are loons in the left; we have them, you have Ann Coulter, LGF and that “God Hates ****” guy who goes to soldier’s funerals. But the mainstream left is not trying to push Wicca, or astrology, or crystal healing as part of its platform. Only one side is debasing science while shoving their religious values down our throats, what with teaching Intelligent Design, appointing NASA spokesmen who claim the Big Bang is “just a theory”, fighting stem cell research, smearing climatologists as tree-hugging nuts and trying to stop the use of cancer-preventing vaccines that would “encourage promiscuity”.

    I had always pegged you as one of the more rational conservative bloggers. Do you really want to go on the record as saying that some flakes in the Democratic Party are more destructive than the people trying to gut science education in Kansas, Ohio, Georgia and wherever else ID is being pushed?

  16. Kristjan Wager wrote:

    No commissar, that’s not the message. It’s one about focus.

    It’s important to focus on the real powerful groups trying to influence politics.

    PZ does that, no matter their party affiliation (as his several run-ins with the Christian block of the liberal blogsphere amply demonstrates). Astrology is simple a non-issue, no matter the political affiliation of the believers.

    The second someone tries to get official US policy to adher to some sort of astrology, I’m sure the science blogsphere (no matter their political affiliation) is going to rise up, and denounce it.

    To me, this just seems like a cheap attempt from you side to sow strife among liberals. That’s ok, but don’t pretend that there is some kind of higher purpose with this.

    BTW, why are you so certain that astrology is a liberal phenomenom? I am asking in all seriousness - as far as I have observed, people who believe in astrology comes from every part of the political spectrum.

  17. Samurai Sam wrote:

    My visitors from Pharyngula are unanimous: “Our pseudo-scientists are not as bad as your pseudo-scientists.”

    Well, yes, in fact, that is the case. Creationism and astrology are both equally ridiculous. One, however, is advocated for by the President of the United States. One required a federal court ruling to get it out of the Dover, PA biology cirriculum. One has its roots in a religion of which 85% of Americans claim to be believers.

    The other is a bit of entertaining fluff printed in the comics section of newspapers.

    Produce anything like The Discovery Institute or The 700 Club for leftist astrologers, and maybe you’d have the beginnings of a comparison.

  18. John the Marine wrote:

    Ridiculous analogy. No one’s trying to get astrology taught in schools, or to push it on anyone, far as I know. It’s bullshit, of course, but the best example of its influence is that it’s next to the comics section in the paper. Give me a break.

    Hey, valrus, you seem a little touchy. You must have some Virgo planets stuck in your but. Sheesh, I was just curious.

  19. commissar wrote:

    dgbellak,

    I’ve never read one of PZMyers’ posts? He and I have been linking and reading and commenting and yelling at each other for years.

    You are wholly uninformed.

  20. commissar wrote:

    Canuck et al,

    Where did I say “more destructive?” I said “worthy of distancing,” which Brent Rasmussen and Myers promptly did.

    I’ll try again. You guys wanna screech about “war on science?” You gotta be squeaky clean on that score, like Rasmussen and Myers. More or less, they said: “The wingnuts may be worse, but astrology, and having an astrologers in the senior councils of our party is bull.”

    As for the argument that “the situation with astrology isn’t that bad yet, when I decide it’s a serious issue, I’ll consider distancing myself from it, (and in the meantime, I’ll not rock the boat, and I’ll let our side pocket the ‘granola’ vote)” .. it stinks to high heaven, is crassly manipulative, and speaks volumes about all of your so-called concern for scientific integrity.

    I’ll repeat that Rasmussen and Myers showed plenty of integrity on this score. Easy to do, really.
    I’m noting “for the record” that none of you want to distance yourself from the “Astrology Based Community,” including poor dgbellak who I expect at any moment to start calling me a Creationist.

  21. DarkSyde wrote:

    The fact is astrology just hasn’t had an impact on science policy during my tenure at Dkos. If it comes up in that context, I’ll probably write about it. If it doesn’t, I’m no more likely to mention it on dkos than voodoo or acupuncture. There’s a whole bunch of what I consider to be highly implausible beliefs that I haven’t written about on dkos. And I’d be thrilled to add creationism or the whole antiscience lunatic fundy faction of the GOP to the pile of politically stupidity I never have to write on again.

  22. Phil Smith wrote:

    Jesucristo, did you read the Armando comments over at Klein’s? Being concerned that Armstrong just might not be an honest character makes you a target for the Wrath of Kos’ Lieutenant.

    It’s amazing to me. Armstrong isn’t just a stock tout, he’s one that can be bought for chickenfeed. But his buddies sure do stand by him.

    Wonder why.

  23. gawker wrote:

    commisar either you are extremely slow or are deliberately trying not to follow the discussion. When liberals “screech about the war on science”, we do not do so for the purpose of merely screeching at something. We do so because it affects our lives and the lives of our children when creationists try to teach them that the earth was built 6000 years ago. But when some non-entity on the lefty camp is pro-astrology, does it affect the country in any way? No. That is the reason behind the lack of “screeching”. You still want us to denounce astrology? Ok, here you go, it is **** and whoever believes in it is an idiot. Now what did that accomplish? Just because you are out of points to make, you are changing the discussion into one that merely consists of asking each and every one of us to chant aloud that astrology is bogus. But what in God’s name is the point of this? The real problem is not some guy believing in astrology but a president and his followers who believe in creationism and would like to impose it upon the rest of us. Get your priorities right and try and be non-partisan in this aspect, otherwise you’re just a joke.

  24. DarkSyde wrote:

    Comm for crying out loud give it up. I posted science essays for a few months on Daily Kos and I slammed religion and all kinds of mysticism along the way. The members voted me onto the front page. I posted a single article on Young earth Creationism and Supernova1987A at redstate and I was banned. That’s the reality. The GOP is utterly dependent on a large, noisy and nosey component who wants to control everyone’s wee-wee and nu-nu and establish science by Fatwa. You’re stuck with them, without them you couldn’t get elected to county dogcatcher. Projecting that precarious alliance and imo revolting faction onto the rest of the nation won’t solve your problem. And it is a problem progressives simply don’t face. You do.

    Commisar’s one of the few regular right-wing bloggers I know of that doesn’t pander to any creationist bullshit. Unfortunately, when it comes to making life and death decisions, he seems to side with the same people that hear voices in their head and think that a ball of cells is full fledged human because it’s been implanted with a supernatural parasite at conception by a magic invisible sky wizard.

    The right has embraced antiscience idiocy and that’s the party you’re stuck with. Boo-hoo. If you don”t like it, then bail. I did. Your choice. But if you whine about it, that only makes us laugh at you. If someone ants to believe in myths, no skin off my nose as lpong as they don’t shove it on me. Left leaning religious voters range from tolerant to amusing to ridiculous depending on the individual. Right-wing conservative religious nutcases fly airplanes into skyscrapers and blow up government buildings in Oklahoma or elsewhere in retaliation against an imaginary ZOG while praying for the end of mankind after an interminable period of global war and torture to mark the final cosmic pissing contest between rival sky fairies. LOL–excuse me if I notice a differential between the two.

  25. Schwa wrote:

    Can you really say that astrologers (with some exceptions like Sylvia Browne) are part of the War on Science if they aren’t really fighting? It’s like trying to draw a comparison between Unitarian Universalists and Southern Baptists - one group stays at home and doesn’t bother anybody, while the other has a multimillion dollar lobbying machine and a number of television networks.

    If astrologers are, in fact, a left-leaning group, then I’d say “the Left’s” crazies are, in fact, not a big deal as a group because they don’t cause anything to happen. Individuals like Jerome Armstrong basing decisions on astrology is a huge problem, but it’s bullshit to equate the severity of harm to science from astrology and harm to science from fundamentalist religion.

  26. plunge wrote:

    This seems like a pretty darn weak “I needed something to complain about the left that in some way might compare to what the right does with science, but this was all I could come up with” attempt.

    “it stinks to high heaven, is crassly manipulative, and speaks volumes about all of your so-called concern for scientific integrity.”

    Dude, you’re full of it. Astrology is pure bullplop, but to my knowledge, no one is trying to get it taught at schools, or trying to set government policy based on it. The sum total of its political and social impact is of one of many lame ways to try to pick up chicks.

    Trying to compare that to anything the right does, or demanding that people spend tons of time debunking or paying it any attention in order to be “squeaky clean” just screams DESPERATE, and you only scream it louder and louder the more you protest.

    Just because I don’t clean my fingernails a often as I should doesn’t mean I can’t complain when someone walks through my house covered in pigpoo.

  27. plunge wrote:

    Oh, and for the record, I think Armondo is a screechy fanatical nut. Just so we’re all on the same page.

  28. commissar wrote:

    Schwa,
    “but it’s bullshit to equate the severity of harm to science from astrology and harm to science from fundamentalist religion.”

    Who did that?

    Gawker,
    I didnt ask you to comment on this blog or say anything. I did invite a response from 4 “pro-science” bloggers.

    DarkSyde,

    You slammed religion on DKos and they let you stay? Really? No kidding?

    All,

    The argument that “the situation with astrology isn’t that bad yet, when I decide it’s a serious issue, I’ll consider distancing myself from it, (and in the meantime, I’ll not rock the boat, and I’ll let our side pocket the ‘granola’ vote)” .. it stinks to high heaven, is crassly manipulative, and speaks volumes about all of your so-called concern for scientific integrity.

    Plunge,

    A senior advisor to one of your serious candidates for the President has used astrology for plenty of forecasting and decision-making. I’m against teaching ID and Creationism in the schools, but there is no rule that that’s the only place to stop pseudo-science. You all have an inflamed passion about “anyone who objects to astrology influencing our political process must be a wingnut — because it’s not bad enough yet!

  29. DarkSyde wrote:

    Comm I posted articles called “What It’s Like To Be An Atheist” and “Why I Am An Atheist” which recieved many hundreds of comments and dozens of links, and that’s just a couple. I tried not to be needlessly offfensive but when you compare theism to believing in santa Claus there’s only so much you can do, eh?

    Here’s the deal: Right now there are two different authors who want to send me science related books for review that look at least interesting to me, one who has sent me a book for review and is asking when I’m going to get around to posting it, two candidates for office who have various, promising agendas they’d like me to help promote, at least half a dozen bloggers telling me I should link them who may be great or may not, and a reporter I’m trying to help with an article on global warming. Add to that list of possibly productive stories, I have I have a guy pestering me to do a science post on a Dark Matter/Dark Energy engine of highly dubious validity, a mercury/pharma/autism conspiracist, a Diebold conpsiracist who doubles as a 9-11 conspiracist, two fellows or possibly one sock puppet who insist I do a piece on how well the Quron predicts recently observed cosmological and physical phenomena–minus commnon descent of course–one Christian, I think anyway, who keeps bugging the **** out of me for answers to stock creationist bullshit that sound like he read them off a CD Rom from Kent Hovind … I made the mistake of once responding to him …

    That’s all *just* in the last four hours Stephen and it’s in addition to several posts and one interview I’m writing right now. So far today I’ve received 112 emails and that’s not including listgroups or my spam filter. Now I’m not griping about the onslaught, it comes with the territory of writing on a large blog. I’m just trying to give you some idea of the demands on my time and attention so thatc you udnerstand that just by setting time aside to make comments and respond I’m treating you as both a friend and someone I respect.

    And you’re telling me I should focus on going out of my way to insult anyone who believes in astrology because I haven’t been clear enough in the past, despite post after post and even articles in books, that I think mysticism and religious belief is based on highly unlikely undelraying magic and godls, godessess, or godlets, purely to satify what could be intepreted as your insecurity with your own party’s ****** up dynamic and to help smear a which may or may not hold the very beliefs you would have me smear him for and whom I don’t even know. That’s how it reads from here my friend.

  30. frontinus wrote:

    Darksyde wasn’t banned from RedState for heterodoxy. He was banned for being a duplicitous ***** caught by one of the few moderates at RS(dissension in the ranks). That he still wears that as a badge of honor is, however, completely unsurprising.

    As for astrology nuts like Kos’s sweetheart, they had to bubble up some place after Natural Law died. That one of them was a professional liar and bullshit artist cozy with the gutter swill of netroots is, again, completely unsurprising.

  31. Phil Plait, aka The wrote:

    As someone pointed out above, I take no **** from left, right, or middle. Wrong is wrong. Creationism, suppression of science, astrology… they’re all garbage, and I say so on my bad Astronomy site.

    But I am puzzled: astrology is hardly the left’s pied piper the way creationism is for the right. Bringing this up as a way to bash liberals is a really, really big stretch. And, as someone correctly pointed out above, Nancy Reagan used an astrologer to plan her schedule, which directly impacted her husband’s work.

  32. Darth Gumby wrote:

    “I don’t recall reading PZ Myers, DarkSyde, … or Brent Rasmussen denouncing astrologists.”

    Right! And have they denounced the belief that the Dutch lost to Portugal because they weren’t wearing orange? No, they haven’t! Therefore, we never have to listen to anything they say about science every again. Until they denounce all irrational beliefs held by anyone who is even remotely connected with “The Left” (and note that this means enumerating in detail all the beliefs — can’t leave any out!) we can’t take them seriously! Because you have to be absolutely squeaky-clean before you can say anything! And of course, NOBODY EVERY IS!!! Once you understand this core principle of conservatism, you can save yourself a lot of painful thinking.

  33. frontinus wrote:

    I think there’s a distinct difference between a man humoring his wife obsessing about an assassination attempt and someone taking up the craft through passing fancy. But maybe that’s just me.

  34. DarkSyde wrote:

    Still hurting from that ass kicking eh Frontinus? Fact is you guys cowered in terror at having your nutcase fundy young earth creationist faction held up to the light of day. Here on the other hand, all four of the people Comm mentioned in the article have denounced astrology as silly–and that’s saying it nicely. You’re a hostage to your nutcases, can’t live with em, can’t win office without em.

  35. plunge wrote:

    “The argument that “the situation with astrology isn’t that bad yet, when I decide it’s a serious issue, I’ll consider distancing myself from it, (and in the meantime, I’ll not rock the boat, and I’ll let our side pocket the ‘granola’ vote)” .. it stinks to high heaven, is crassly manipulative, and speaks volumes about all of your so-called concern for scientific integrity.”

    What does it say about your integrity that you have to outright lie about what our position like this is in order to attack us?

    “A senior advisor to one of your serious candidates for the President has used astrology for plenty of forecasting and decision-making.”

    Cite? You’ve provided nothing more than some random wishful thinking blather that the guy himself seems sort of sheepish about and explicitly says that he DOESN’T use it for any actual job stuff. Again, you’re streching so hard that your pants are falling off. I mean, did you not read the lines “have completely tapered out of it over time.” or “It has nothing to do with what I consult with in online political strategy.” things that directly contradict what you said? Hmmm?

    “I’m against teaching ID and Creationism in the schools, but there is no rule that that’s the only place to stop pseudo-science.”

    Boy, you sure love those straw men! No one claimed that anyone should or had to. But did you forget your own argument? You claim/ed that there is some major hypocrisy going on because liberals aren’t running around decrying astrology (a belief that seems as popular on the right as it is left regardless). But a far more plausible explanation is that astrology is harmless, in the realm of “boy that’s pretty damn dumb. And now: pie!”

    No one is doing anything particularly bad or even notable with astrology, and as dumb as it is, there are a lot of more pressing things that catch our attention and interest. In case you’ve been asleep for the past hundred years of skepticism, debunking astrology is pretty darn common. It just isn’t a subject that generates much anger or constant posting, because it just isn’t part of the culture war in any way shape or form, on either side.

    Your whole argument seems rely on pretending that an offhand comment by a private citizen about some dumb superstition he has in his personal life in some way equates with the governor of south carolina declaring that evolution violates thermodynamics and we should teach kids that. Sorry, no dice. Not even close.

    For the record, I don’t believe the things that most believers, conservative or liberal, believe in: like Jesus, original sin, and so forth. But since they generally never try to make an issue out of those things, I don’t go running around looking for a good chance to denounce them for no reason other than that I find them silly. I’m not mad at creationism because it’s silly. I’m mad that people are trying to claim that it’s science and get it taught as such.

    Prove to me that astrology is doing that, or else all your whining about how we don’t spend our days railing against it is just BS.

  36. commissar wrote:

    Dark Syde,

    Ha! Sure, Brent & PZ dissed astrology from the biggest platforms they have. And you’re sorta, kinda willing to .. in any number of minor venues.

  37. frontinus wrote:

    You know what they say about assumptions, DS. Though in your case I think the result would be redundant.

    What capacity do I have at RS? How did I get to be included as part of “you guys”? Fact is I just reread the two threads there before posting and you were not busted by one of the hardcore, doctrinaire regulars but by a moderate who frequented both RS and dKos. The peanut gallery at RS would have never come across your juvenile bragging about trolling since they never read dKos. And you were not banned(even praised by some) until “dissent” pointed out that you were a duplicitous *******. Yet instead of responding to that you just take off on an ad hominem. Par for the course if nothing else. Try to lie on this blog to bolster a point and cry like a little ***** when someone points out the lie.

  38. Jillian wrote:

    If Lefties treated the issue of having one of their serious presidential candidates consult an astrologer for decision making advice with the same urgency they handle global warming, they’d all be driving Hummers right up until the Greenland ice sheet melts and swamps the earths costal cities.
    Maybe someone should tell Algore to settle down until global warming actually becomes a problem.

  39. DarkSyde wrote:

    Frontinus if you’re not a part of that crew, you have my apologies for erroneously including you therein. I don’t hold anything against them BTW, it’s their blog, they can kick out who they want. I’m just pointing out that the only schism I’ve encountered between science and politics in my blogging life has come from the right wing.

    Comm I dissed astrology on the same platform Brent did purely for your benefit and I’ve written enough critical material on the FP and in diaries of Dkos about religion and mysticism to keep you busy for days. If I can find an interesting story about astrology affecting politics and/or science policy in some meaningful way, I’ll consider writing about that on the FP or in a diary as well.

    You seem to dislike the success of Daily Kos specifically and left progressive blogosphere in general. You may be having the same problem some in the tradmed are having when they try to write about us. It’s an honest misunderstanding.

    You may dismiss this as hype or whatnot, but I’m really trying to get across what’s going on and this is important IF you want to understand: The Daily Kos community and most of the large progressive blogging groups don’t care much what the media thinks or what the right wing thinks or what newsweek thinks or what Commissar thinks. It makes for an interesting conversation and discussion when we get written about sure, so it’s easy for an outsider to think otherwise peeking in on day to day gossip, but we really don’t give a ****. Ultimately it’s irrelevant to us. We’ll keep doing what we’re doing, growing in numbers, regardless if we’re being praised or trashed or ignored or courted by the mainstream or anyone else. We were doing it before anyone paid attention to us, they were doing before I came along, and they we’ll be doing it long after I’m gone.

    What they can’t seem to get that our success isn’t a product of any one person or persons. DKos and the whole progressive sphere just doesn’t it operate like any other well known grassroots. There is no central control, there is no top down structure, we’re not organized by ideology and, this is critical to understand, we’re not pulled by pundits or candidates towards carefully selected issues or political platforms. We’re an unorganized mob that collectively pushes pundits and candidates towards issues we collectively gravitate toward and we push them by sheer force of numbers.
    It’s a people powered movement, it’s a bunch of loosely affiliated writers and readers who debate and argue and discuss and kvetch. There are leaders with a small “l” that come and go almost as fast as blog posts. There are no Leaders with a capital “L”. Smearing any of the little-l leaders, even if done successfully, won’t have the effect you hope for. You could have a video of Markos punting a cute fuzzy puppy. It wouldn’t change a thing. You’d have a better chance of trying to stop a tidal wave with a pistol. If you watch it/us and think about it for a while, you’ll get it eventually.

  40. commissar wrote:

    Sorry, DS, my only mission in life is “smearing” people I disagree with us.

  41. Pixy Misa wrote:

    The left’s Creationism isn’t astrology. Astrology is just a side-issue, and there are plenty of Republicans who believe in astrology anyway.

    They’re all idiots, but there are always plenty of idiots to go around.

    The left’s Creationism is post-modernism; more specifically, the insane attempt to apply this worthless creed to real research, Chomsky’s linguistics work being a prime example. It’s caused more damage to America’s education system than a hundred years of religious fundamentalists could hope for.

  42. r4d20 wrote:

    LEfties are not astrologists.

    We are members of the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

    Get your facts stright.

  43. r4d20 wrote:

    They will care about Global Warming one their beafront mansions start flooding.

    Then we will see massive government subsidies.

  44. canuckistani wrote:

    If Lefties treated the issue of having one of their serious presidential candidates consult an astrologer for decision making advice

    Cool! I like the way we go from a political consultant who believes in astrology to a candidate who “consults an astrologer”. Can we push this further? Can we conflate astrology with Satan-worship and black masses?

  45. frontinus wrote:

    Good job, DS. Now you can start accurately describing a record that is, afterall, archived. Or I guess not since your peanut gallery is apparently as indifferent as the other.

  46. Ed Darrell wrote:

    DarkSyde said:

    So, do you feel lucky?

    No, no, no, no, no! It should be: “So, do you feel lucky, punk? Well, do ya?”

  47. DarkSyde wrote:

    SteveI hate to break it you, and I know this won’t fit into your strawman– Let’s clear up a few points here on the folks Comm mentioned in the article: I’m DarkSyde, I’m a centrist or conservative leaning progressive at least with respect to foreign policy. Brent is something similar, if anything he’s more conservative than I am. Ed Brayton is a libertarian/progressive in most respects–the same day he was lumped in with us another blogger was calling him an apologist for the ‘cypto-facist right.’ Ed’s one of the most objective, independent bloggers I know of. PZ is a progressive with a keen interest in science. Point is all have varying and different politics, but we can’t all four be described as ‘liberals’ or ‘lefties.’

    Fact is I hold no grudge against nukes and I’d be quite happy to see more research and support into fusion or fission. The former is a ways off from commercial viability though. With fission, there are issues of security, considering the quantities of fuel needed, we’d have to be a lot more careful about how to move it around and dispose of it. You don’t want spent rods falling into the wrong hands. And it would be very expensive, we’re talking around ten trillion dollars or more to replace a quarter of existing power plants with nukes–this wouldn’t do anything to address gasoline consumption in cars and trucks. So it’s a possibility, any power source is better than no power source. But there may be better ways if gas gets too expensive.

    Right now we use fossil fuels because they’re the cheapest and most convenient source of energy we know of available in sufficient quantities. But world production of oil and other energy may be peaking, and critical energy resources lay in some of the most screwed up regions of the world. It would be a big relief for all kinds of reasons if we could have some alternatives. The universe we live in is chock full of energy. We live a few miles above a giant global ocean of red-hot rock and iron and there’s a fusion reactor in the sky. The moon and sun drag mountains of water and air around the planet everyday, there is energy stored in the cosmos from the scale of Dark Energy to individual strings. The issue is not energy, it’s tapping into the bounty that exists for the taking, if we’re smart enough. And we are smart enough, we’ll figure it out sooner or later. But as I lie here, I’d like to see the US take the lead.

    Without massive government subsidies and a guaranteed market, our greatest technological achievements would not exist. No atom bomb, no moon landing, and all the developments and benefits that flow[ed] from those items would not exist, some of which are inside your PC right now and allowing you to participate in this discussion. Those challenges would have never been solved by the ‘free market’ when they were. And would you really want the free market developing atom bombs? Or would you really want an over seas competitor trumping us in cutting edge technology? Who’s side are you on exactly?

    We can either keep giving money to the bin Laden’s and Saudis–not to mention Venezuela, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Nigeria — and putting up with all the headaches and expense that go with it. Or we can devote a small fraction of what we’re already paying for in Iraq to a solution that allows us, among other things, to care less what happens in Iran or Saudi Arabia.

    So spare me the neocon apologetics or the usual attacking points. You only make yourself look silly in my eyes and in the eyes of a lot of people eatching this discussion, and you reinforce the typical right wing stereotype that I assume is as much of a strawman as the converse one you’re trying to attach to me.

  48. commissar wrote:

    Astrology - nowhere near as influential as all that GOP pseudo-science (see numerous Leftie comments above) or too influential at dKos for DarkSyde to “offend anyone” there? ???

    DS covers with “too busy, not important, yadda, yadda,” but if Karl Rove had been reported seeing an astrologer, surely we would be treated to one of DS’ lengthy, well-written historical pieces on astrology, tracing its history from ancient times, the origins of the zodiacal signs, the traditional influence of astrology in Chinese society, etc. It would be wonderful.

    But since the astrologer is a powerful Dem and Kossack — mum’s the word.

  49. DarkSyde wrote:

    You apparently either can’t read or are so blinded by anger and jealousy that you can’t think straight. It’s simple: if I saw an obscure quote that you dabbled in Buddhism or played with an Ouija Board a few years ago but don’t buy it, I would be hard pressed to think of a way to work that into a national story on the front page of a major newspaper …. And if I just wrote out of the blue “Oh BTW Kossacks, I don’t believe in astrology” I can only imagine the reaction would range from indifference to “Uhhh, errr, no **** DS, this is on the front page because …?”

    LOL, I can just see that headline: Breaking News–Noted Science Blogger And Skeptic Doesn’t Believe In Astrology. What a scoop, huh? That’s such a non-story I didn’t feel it was appropriate for UTI, which is dedicated to skepticism. I wrote a snarky mocking satire of your ridiculous implication.

    Let me make this crystal clear: I won’t give in to amateur attempts at intimidation or obsessive pressure from you or anyone else on anything ever. That includes writing a specific article to smear a guy I don’t know over beliefs he mentioned in passing in a single quote–where he goes on to renounce those same beliefs–which had no impact on anything I know of or care about, simply to satisfy your obsession with attacking anything or anyone remotely associated with kos or to quell your temper-tantrum at being hung out to dry by Glenn Greenwald on TNR or autobanned from Dkos.

  50. John the Marine wrote:

    You know, if I was being accused of believing in Astrology I might get a little hot to. But this is not only unrelated but offensively stupid…

    Right-wing conservative religious nutcases fly airplanes into skyscrapers

    I mean really Darsyde, I’m curious as to who the Republicans were that were involved in 9/11. Are you seriosly saying that the “Religious Right” are involved with Al Qeada?

  51. RickD wrote:

    I denounce astrology and the horse it rode it on! Of course I’m just a lurker and not a proper blogger.

    Seriously, if you are equating the influence of Jerome Armstrong’s hobby with that of George W. Bush’s “teach the controversy” attitude towards creationism/ID, then I would point out that Jerome has not, as far as I’m aware, ever advocated the expenditure of government funds towards the teaching of astrology in some kind of co-equal status. If/when he takes that step, and if/when that step is pooh-poohed by “the Left”, then I think you’ll have a case to make. Meanwhile, do you think we can get a little more in the way of evolution taught in all those Red States your party is running? Thanks a bunch in advance.

  52. DarkSyde wrote:

    John–I didn’t say Republicans or Christians. I said right wing religious nutcases fly airplanes into buildings … Islamic extremists such as the 9-11 hijackers were right-wing religious nutcases. They and OBL are big time social/religious conservatives who incidentally happen to share many of the same views as our domestic version with regard to birth control, women’s rights, sep of chruch and state, etc. If they called Allah “God” and accepted Jesus as His Son, theyd fit right in with our religious right like peas in a pod.

  53. John the Marine wrote:

    Since the conversation took a “Left” turn at Global Warming I think it is only fair to point something out. IT IS NOT A DECIDED MATTER AMONG SCIENTISTS. Climate science is in its infancy. We really don’t know much about the effect of of increased CO2 in the atmosphere. In yesterday’s WSJ there was an interesting article written by two MIT professors (hardly oil lobby hacks plotting against the ice sheets). Their thrust is that our climate has never been static. The Earth is (and always has) constantly warming or cooling. This is a known fact. Also, they state that current models are not accurate to the degree that Global Warming advocates assert.

    However, keeping the above in mind. I would say conservation should be a natural for Conservatives (it is for me I drive a little Toyota Corolla). I mean it is a no brainer, keep more money in my pocket while protecting the beach front property of those evil rich folks. A win win!

    Hey, what do your Leftie Astrologers tell us about the climate? Maybe DKos could do a post on it. Shoot if the planets and stars have lined up in a way that makes Global Warming a certain part of our future let me know. I’ll stock up on sun-block.

  54. DarkSyde wrote:

    Well I appreciate the open minded attitude. Keep in mind naturul changes in the past don’t mean they’re somehting we don’t care about. The earth warmed and cooled a lot in the Permian-Triassic extinction also. That was a bad time to be alive. What’s worrisome to me is that the religious right seems more predisposed than most to accepting gibberish if it comes down through previoulsy accepted channels. Some of them appear to lack important critical thinking skills and worse, to pride themselves on it. At least that’s my experience in discussing global wamring or evo. So they’re easily misled by opportunists who pose as one of them and sell them a whole bill of goods that have nothing to do with their faith. And sicne thery hold so much power, that’s a problem. If they were just powerless flakes it wouldn’t be.

    EG: Global warming is a myth or not caused by humans or we shouldn’t worry about it? Even the White House disgrees with that view finally and yet it’s firmly ingrained among the religious right to this day. For exnmaple you just just used an opinion piece by a tiny minority onpinion written by two nortorious and well known climate skeptics published in one of the most pro business and conservative newspaper in the world without even blinking. Those guys have been shot to pieces for years by the vast consensus of climate researchers, but they didn’t give you that info in the WSJ and it agreed with other views you may already have, so you tend to think it might hold water. It does not John. It’s complete bunk. I can show you degreed astronmers who argue for an earth centered solar system. Pay someone enough money or quote someone out of context or give them the proper motivastion, and you can probably find a trauma surgeon who will testify under oath that decapitation isn’t fatal. But more inmportantly WTF does global warming have to do with Christianity? Why do you suppose the religious right is so skeptical of it? Do you really think it’s just a fluke that they hold that view?

    What worrisome is when you combine all that, the agenda and the foolishness with their desire for complete control over the personal lives of American citizen. It just seems to know no bounds.

  55. plunge wrote:

    First calling Greenwald and lair and having that blow up in your face, and now this. Not a good week so far for YOUR good judgement or credibility.

  56. John the Marine wrote:

    I can show you degreed astronmers who argue for an earth centered solar system.

    Just for laughs I would like to see an example of the above. Holy sh_t I bet their explanations are very amusing.

    But more inmportantly WTF does global warming have to do with Christianity? Why do you suppose the religious right is so skeptical of it? Do you really think it’s just a fluke that they hold that view?

    Beats me… My pastor never bought it up.

    However, back to the more serious. What about the Hockey stick hoax? I remember reading that it was widely discredited. Also, nothing for nothing you have the NYT and I have the WSJ. yours is a Pinko liars rag and mine is a pro-business shill sheet. Take your pick.

    I don’t wholy discard global warming or that CO2 could be playing a role. After all as pointed out by the WSJ CO2 does absorb infrared radiation and since I’m a chemist I can professionally tell you that it is true. But how does this effect the climate? What about the little “ice age” or the warming period around 1500 AD? Are these lies also. Isn’t our climate still dynamic? and what variables are at work? These are not the questions of a rightwing religious fundamentalist nut job, but reasonalbe scientific questions.

    My solution would be to conserve fuel and look for alternatives while further research is done on the matter. Hell, being a chemist I might get some work out of the deal.

  57. DarkSyde wrote:

    John–One guy’s name is DR Gerardus Bouw re geocentrism, he’s quite a hoot. Nice guy actually, I’ve correspnded with him. but he’s a bit whacky.

    The hockey stick was ‘discredited’ by a PR campaign designed for public consumption. It’s been verified by actual research over and over. In fact one of the guys that developed it is a friend of mine. A few years ago, he was dragged by way of subpoena or some kind of official summons in fornt of a witch hunt by Rep Joe Barton and told he had to come up with every single piece of research and funding in his entire career, while Michael Critchon, science fiction author, was given the red capret treatment. It was apretty ugly episode of intimidation. But yes, the hockey stick looks more solid than ever. Well obviously if it’s happening we don’t want to add to it anymore than necessary. Everyone now agrees it is happening and it looks like it’s getting worse, faster, than we thought. As for the debate over humans causing it, yeah, as best we can tell right now, we’re causing a lot of it. Carbon and other GHGs produced by modern industry often carry chemical and radiometric signatures that can be detected. Now obviously we can’t just shut down the power plants or cars. Going back to the stone age, sleeping naked in the dirt and scrapping for rat meat and seeds, isn’t an option I want to consider and I bet you agree wholeheartedly!

    This may sound nationalistic but it’s a simple fact: The US is the most badass fusion of science, technology, and business the world has ever seen. If we give corporations just a shot at a market or product they wouldn’t otherwise have, they will deliver, sometimes brilliantly. The bigger the payoff, the more resources they’ll devote to getting it. Corporations aren’t good or bad, they’re in business to make money. I know a lot of people in the oil industry and they bust their ass in some of the most dangerous environments on earth to obtain, transport, refine, and deliver a product to the pump cheaper than bottled water from the hills of Arkansas. Why? To make money. Give business a serious incentive on alt energy and GHGs, and it’s a good bet they’ll do the same. But it’s naive to expect them to unilaterally and altruistically solve the energy issue or worry about GHG if they can’t see a profit pretty near term. That’s what government can provide, massive incentive, and in the last fifty years the US government has become exceedingly good at it. Give businesses tax breaks for outsourcing or drilling on public land, you’ll get more outsourcing and drilling. Give them a different incentive, and you’ll get an SR-71 or a Saturn V booster. We can lick climate change and alt energy as well. Same way we addressed ozone depletion and acid rain, with a fusion of government regs, industry incentive, and technology . But we need to get past this dumbass industry propaganda or the slerf serving process of trying to portray it as a left vs right issue. That’s an utterly unproductive diversion. Approach the problem with proven methods and there’s no reason we can’t prevail.

  58. John the Marine wrote:

    Now obviously we can’t just shut down the power plants or cars. Going back to the stone age, sleeping naked in the dirt and scrapping for rat meat and seeds, isn’t an option I want to consider and I bet you agree wholeheartedly!

    A safe assumption indeed.

    This may sound nationalistic but it’s a simple fact: The US is the most badass fusion of science, technology, and business the world has ever seen.

    Hey, don’t be shy. Your talking to a Marine… there is no bigger nationalist than me. If you praise France though we’ll have problem.

    deliver a product to the pump cheaper than bottled water from the hills of Arkansas.

    Since it comes from Arkansas I will stop drinking bottled water. If you’ve been to the “land of opertunity” and seen its inhabitants you know why.

    We can lick climate change and alt energy as well. Same way we addressed ozone depletion and acid rain, with a fusion of government regs, industry incentive, and technology . But we need to get past this dumbass industry propaganda or the slerf serving process of trying to portray it as a left vs right issue. That’s an utterly unproductive diversion. Approach the problem with proven methods and there’s no reason we can’t prevail.

    I think that there is more to it than industry propaganda. Unfortunately the Left has adopted “Global Warming” as their little darling issue. They have also presented the case in the format of: If you don’t believe me your a dumb ass. This has been quite a turn off. My suggestion would be find a better spokesperson than Al Gore. He’s an Asshat and very hard to take seriously (even though he invented the internet).
    Oh, just one more thing. Drilling for oil here (Alaska) in the present wouldn’t hurt. I’m sure your friends in the industry would tell you that the means for doing it safely and enviromentally friendly exist. I trust the caribou will cope. At any rate I’m not whole heartedly convinced but my curiosity is aroused. So, perhaps you can claim a victory of sorts because I am more receptive to evaluating the science behind your assertions. However, I’ll have to see the evidenced presented by credible sources who have no ax to grind. If your case is as solid as you say these type of sources should be easy to find.

  59. DarkSyde wrote:

    There’s no doubt we will drill in ANWR and if oil keeps climbing we’ll be setting up rigs in Yosemite if there’s oil there as well. It won’t make any difference in the big picture though.

    But it’s going to be tough to get anywhere if folks with the power keep falling for the old ‘the left/Al Gore likes it so it must be bad’ routine. No one picked Al Gore to be the spokesman, he picked himself. But in regard to a request for evidence, you can talk directly to real live, politically diverse climate researchers on blogs like Realclimate anytime you like and they’ll tell you pretty much the same thing Gore is saying. And now the WH is saying pretty much the same thing: Climate change is real, we can do something about it, and those solutions also address big headaches we face because of our dependence on foriegn oil. We can lick this if we want to, the only question is if we want to.

  60. DarkSyde wrote:

    Here’s an interesting starting point. This graph shows average global temperatures. The red moving average corresponds to what has been called a decadal signal. What’s interetsing about this graph is that it drops steeply in 1940 and then goes sideways to slightly up until about 1070 at which piont it begins to climb steeply. There are two seperate human created phenomena affecting the red trace. One of them shows up in that stretch from 1940-70. See if you can learn what they are by poking around the internet or just thinking about it.

  61. Craig Ewert wrote:

    My visitors from Pharyngula are unanimous: “Our pseudo-scientists are not as bad as your pseudo-scientists.”

    A quick google of a Harris poll show 21% of R and 28% of D admit to believing strology. Hardly a matter of “our pseudo-scientists”.

    Elsewhere:

    we didn’t evolve from monkeys. …If anyone thinks this is nit-picking…

    This is exactly nit-picking. In scientific discourse the difference between humanoids, apes, monkeys, primates, prosimians, etc is important and technical. In the vernacular, they’re all monkeys. Including, as Chris Walken says in The Prophesy, us.

  62. purple gloves wrote:

    Lurker coming out…have to say, the very first thing I thought of when the word astrology was used in this context was…you guessed it…Nancy Reagan.

    As for it being the “Left’s creationsim”…well that’s just plain silly, in a “THIS is the best you can come up with?” kind of way. Though it has provided for some entertaining posts.

    Great blog, btw. :)

  63. Steve Verdon wrote:

    Darksyde,

    First, I’m not a neocon.

    Second, I’m calling Bravo Sierra on the $10 trillion dollar cost thingy for spent fuel rods…at least as a current cost. Maybe way down the road when the economy is also much, much larger okay. But until you back up that number I’m considering it worthless ****.

    As for the views of people like PZ, Ed, Brent, et. al. I see that as all besides the point. As for your own, I’m unimpressed. Perhaps if you did something like put up a post on global warming and nuclear power at dKos I’d reconsider. After all, science shouldn’t be subordinated to politics right?

    As for your argument on subsidies and guaranteed markets, I’m calling Bravo Sierra on that too. After all, how much of a market is there for U.S. made nuclear weapons? I’m guessing the U.S. government tends to do just the opposite, keep that market just as small as possible…but hey I’m open to whatever data you got. And defense spending whether on nuclear weapons or other stuff isn’t a subsidy, but spending on a public good. A rather significant difference. As for the things in my computer, that is bogus also. The source of that kind of innovation does not reside solely with the U.S. government.

    John,

    IMO, DarkSyde is being a bit misleading with the hockey stick. The issues raised by McIntyre and McKitrick seem to more methodological than anything else, and last I read Mann, et. al. were being very very nasty about providing data and source code. Further, the group of scientists who keep “verifying” the hockey stick are a rather “incestuous” lot in that they all tend to publish together. In other words, each study either has one of the original Hockey Stick authors or those close connected with them.

    DarkSyde is right that the whole thing has been ugly, but part of that is due to Mann, et. al. and their refusal to hand over data and source code.

    Part of McIntyre’s objective is to get more transparency and disclosure in AGW research. He has been met with a very strong level of resistance from Mann, et. al. Kind of disappointing considering that the policies advocated to slow down/stop/reverse AGW could be very very expensive.

  64. Steve Verdon wrote:

    John,

    One other point on the hockey stick. Even if it turns out to be false or different than Mann et. al. indicated, that doesn’t disprove the AGW hypothesis. There is still other evidence that points towards warming.

  65. John the Marine wrote:

    Darksyde, interesting graph but 1880 to a little past 2000 is a pretty short period of time respecting global climate trends. I would be curious what the trend looks like over at least a thousand years. The question I have is: Are there other peaks and valleys in the past 1000 years that are comparable in height and depth respectively to the current peak and preceding valley? For instance, What would the graph look like if the 1500 AD warming period and the mini-iceage were incorporated. Now, to be fair we do not have a homogenous source of data for the time period that I’ve referenced. Earlier data would have to be inferred from indirect sources. An example of an indirect source could be changes in crop viability for certain regions (and I imagine there are others). Also, again to be fair past data, especially the indirect variety, is not going to be as precise as the more recent.

    Respecting your question:

    There are two seperate human created phenomena affecting the red trace. One of them shows up in that stretch from 1940-70. See if you can learn what they are by poking around the internet or just thinking about it.

    Having not investigated the matter as of yet (Hey, I had to drive home and get something to eat. Even Parris Island DI’s allow a little time for evening chow.) I would say hydroflorocarbons used as aerosol propellent and of course CO2. Now it is time go out into the worldwide net and see if I have answered correctly.

  66. DarkSyde wrote:

    Steve I’ve written quite a few posts on global warming and on energy. I’ve haven’t written anything on fission reactions. I’d be happy to discuss why in an email. Oscar Kilo?

    John Yeah they have data going back further. It becomes less and less reliable to reconstruct as one looks further backs and some periods are better understood than others. Paleoclimatology is a pretty involved science in itself. The most accurate data we have for the last 1000 years looks like the hockey stick. There is additional data on various components such as carbon concentration and so forth, some of it stretches back quite a ways. if you want to talk directly to researchers that do this stuff, visit realclimate.

    But you’re a military guy and you sound smart enough, I bet you can figure out a good guess for that dip, and that might lead you to a pretty good hypothesis for the entire pattern in the chart over the last century.

  67. John the Marine wrote:

    Darksyde, I’ll take your recommendation and visit realclimate.

    Apparently I was close. I forgot methane and CFC’s. It seems that the premise of what constitutes a “greenhouse gas” is a molecule’s ability to absorb infrared radiation (this narrows the field). These type of molecules are mostly assymetrical heteroatomic types (N02, CO2, H2O and others. Methane is symectrical but does have a dipole moment). I won’t go into it but to make a long story short, a dipole moment is required for infrared absorption. Which is why N2 and O2 are invisible to infrared radiation. Ah, good old Physical Chem. At any rate, in my mind the key questions are:

    1. How much of the total amount of electromagnetic energy retained by greenhouse gases is due to the man made component of the total of green house gases? or what is the delta between energy retained now and say, 1880?

    Next, one would have to have a means of ranking this determination in respect ot other factors that influence atmospheric temperatures.

    2. Or how much does the increase in retention of energy due to manmade greenhouse gases contribute to the warming of the Earth’s surface in respect to other causes?

    1 is bad enough, but 2 is an even more complicated question involving many variables. (This is where my Chemistry desserts me and the Climatology begins.) It will be interesting to see what your friends have to say.

    Respecting an increase in methane in our atmosphere. All that comes to mind is an increase in live-stock populations and human produced garbage. The garbage because when organic material decomposes methane is a final product along with other simple alkanes. The livestock… Well they eat plant material which they break down in their digestive track. Methane is produced via this process (OK what I’m saying is more animals means more farting. I know this sounds silly so I prepared for the abuse.)

  68. DarkSyde wrote:

    John You’ll have to ask those questions of the guys who do this stuff. I told Mike Mann about them. Say howdy to him if you go over there. My understanding is that methane is a pretty vicious greenhouse gas. One of the longer range tipping points is methane release from permafrost and ocean deposits where it’s stored as methane hydrate. The methane exists as clathrate, when the crystalline cage melts, the methane bubbles out. There is some indication that this phase change may have played a significant role in the final leg of the Permian Extinction.

    I’ll tell you one of the more fascinating geological events involving GHGs, at least I think it’s cool anyway. At the end of the Cryogenian Period, about 650 MYA, the earth may have been completely locked in ice. This is a thermodynamic dead end, because the ice reflects so much light that there is no escape (The sun was also probably dimmer them, it increases in luminosity roughly ten percent per billion years). But an ice planet means almost no humidity, which means almost no rain and no thunderstorms. No mechanism to scrub GHGs like methane or CO2 out. But volcanoes still occur, and they still dump GHGs into the air. What may have happened is those GHGs built up until the temperature beguin to melt the ice at the equator … more water vapor–which also acts like a GHG— and less ice means more heat absorbed, the cycle runs away with itself. The models show that the temp would shoot up rapidly, from maybe 20 F below to over 100 degrees F. If so, oence the process was underway, the planet would have gone from ice covered to a hot steamy sauna in 100 years. And the storms would have been immense, basically multiple year round hurricanes, some lasting maybe ten years or more. Sort of like terrestrial versions of Jupitors Great Red Spot. the geology supports this scenario.

  69. RedDan wrote:

    Hey commisar!

    I am not a “major blogger” but I have been fairly vocal in the political blogosphere for quite a while.

    Astrology is ****. Utter nonsense and pseudoscientific garbage.

    It was **** when the Reagans used it, it’s **** when Armstrong uses it, and it’s **** no matter who uses it.

    As far as we know, Armstrong has never preached that it be taught in schools as an alternative to Astronomy. If it has demonstrably influenced the candidates he has chosen to support and push, that’s just not cool with me.

  70. John the Marine wrote:

    Darksyde, thanks for the information and tip about realclimate. Reading and asking questions will keep me busy for quite some time. If I run across your freind Mike Mann I’ll be sure to pick his brain, and of course say hello. I can’t say I’ve reversed my train of thought on the matter. However, my plan is to approach my opinion from the angle of disproving it. Sort of my own “Devils Advocate” if you will. The discussion has been very interesting and I appreciate your civil demeanor.

    Oh, yes since I’ve shamelessly digressed from the original thread, I’m going to tactically withdraw. Commie, sorry about interupting the flow of things.

  71. pst314 wrote:

    Here are some good sources on (primarily) leftist attacks on science:

    Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and Its Quarrels with Science, by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt

    The Flight from Science and Reason, edited by Paul Gross and Norman Levitt

    Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture, by Norman Levitt

    Fashionable Nonsense: Postmodern Intellectuals’ Abuse of Science, by Alan Sokal and Jean Bricmont

    A House Built on Sand: Exposing Postmodernist Myths About Science, by Noretta Koertge

    The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature, by Steven Pinker

    Not about science per se, but definitely about the left’s attack on reason and truth:

    Signs of the Times: Deconstruction and the Fall of Paul de Man, by David Lehman

    I have heard good things about:

    The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past Paperback, by Keith Windschuttle

    Scientific Irrationalism : Origins of a Postmodern Cult Hardcover by David Stove

    Literature Lost : Social Agendas and the Corruption of the Humanities Paperback by John M. Ellis

  72. commissar wrote:

    DarkSyde,
    A fir of pique over what??? Oh c’mon, you can do better than that.

    I am duly impressed with your resolute refusal to knuckle under to the overwhelming pressure brought to bear by the mega-blog, The Politburo Diktat.

  73. BadTux wrote:

    I certainly agree that some of the most nuttiest of the leftists believe in nutty things. But let’s be real here. The Shirley McClaines of the left have no (zero) power. The religious fundamentalists of the right, on the other hand, are getting schoolbooks re-written to give their myths equal standing with science, something that no one on the left has ever proposed doing, much less tried to do.

    Let’s see, who should I worry about — the nutcases on the left who are powerless, or the nutcases on the right who are censoring my child’s textbook? Well, DUH!

    -BT

  74. pst314 wrote:

    “But let’s be real here. The Shirley McClaines of the left have no (zero) power.”

    Wrong. For just one example, see what Steven Pinker has to say in “The Blank Slate” about liberal/leftist suppression of un-PC opinions and research in academia.

  75. commissar wrote:

    All,

    I’ve been away on family medical business for a couple days, so this is a general response.

    There’s an element of triumphalism in the comments. I wrote this post to instigate a discussion (which is happening). If I was interested in the responses or replies of particular person, it was the three bloggers named. Myers and Rasmussen responded with posts that demonstrated their integrity. Fine. DarkSyde has responded with evasions, distractions, and counter-attacks. That’s fine, too. Res ipse loquitor.

    While repeated by dozens of commenters in different phrases, the reply of “your pseudo-scientists are worse than our psuedo-scientists; maybe we’ll deal with them later” also speaks for itself. So, if you think that dozens of similar comments by leather-lunged lefties engaging in your usual “Big Lie” propaganda tactic constitutes a victory of sorts, I encourage you to persist in that belief.

    I was intrigued by the 2005 Harris poll showing that 28% of Dems and 21% of Reps believe in astrology. The 2003 results were 41% and 19%. Interesting. Maybe all that good science education at DKos has caused the favorable trend. :)

    More likely, the difference is noise in small sub-samples, and the ‘real’ number is mid-thirties for Dems and about twenty for GOP’ers. If I were a Dem, I wouldn’t be so sanguine about all this. You’ve got a real leg up on the “Moon”bat vote, guys.

    And in closing: “nancy reagan nancy reagan nancy reagan nancy reagan nancy reagan nancy reagan” I gotta get something good on Rosalind Carter or Edith Wilson.