Discovery Institute: ClimateGate Obsession Continues

THE email imbroglio known as ClimateGate appears to have literally unhinged the neo-theocrats at the Discovery Institute’s Center for Science and Culture (a/k/a the Discoveroids). At their blog they now have this article posted: Wesley Smith on “The New Inquisition: Ideology’s Corruption of Science”. It’s by John West.

Who is John West? Most of you already know, so you can skip this indented paragraph:

West is a winner of the Curmudgeon’s Buffoon Award. He’s a Senior Fellow at the Seattle-based Discovery Institute (the DI), where he is Associate Director of their Center for Science and Culture. That makes him one of the chief Keepers of their Wedge strategy, and the guru of the cdesign proponentsists (a term described here: cdesign proponentsists).

West’s new article isn’t much, but it’s the latest episode in the Discoveroids’ recent embrace of ClimateGate as the long-awaited vindication of their creationism. Somehow, because of the squabble over global warming, the Discoveroids imagine that “big science” will collapse and their jihad against “Darwinism” will achieve respectability. Fat chance. They’ll have better luck if they go out and search for the remains of Noah’s Ark.

West’s article is quite short. In fact, it’s little more than a link to and a brief excerpt from the blog of another creationist named Wesley J. Smith. A moment’s Googling around informs us that Smith is a “senior fellow” at the Discovery Institute, so we have here is one Discoveroid quoting another. Whoop-de-doo!

West is, we assume, attempting to give the impression that someone else, at some other blog, agrees with the Discoveroids about the meaning of ClimateGate. Yes, folks, it’s a real groundswell!

Anyway, although the substance of West’s post isn’t at all newsworthy, it does reveal the thinking in Seattle. You don’t want to call it “thinking”? Well, whatever it is the Discoveroids do, here’s West’s latest, with bold font added by us:

Wesley J. Smith has an excellent post at his First Things blog on how the recent ClimateGate scandal is just a symptom of a much broader problem involving the ideological corruption of science:

That’s all West says. The rest of his post is a one-paragraph excerpt from Smith’s blog. We’ll break that into smaller parts so we can toss in a bit of Curmudgeonly commentary. Here’s what West copied from Smith:

Global warming isn’t the only field in which we have witnessed this kind of brazen ideological corruption of science in recent years. I have seen the same approach taken repeatedly against heterodox views in the human cloning/ESCR controversy, to the point that people have been driven off of faculties or denied tenure.

More “expelled” material? We’re not interested in that. Let’s read on:

My colleagues at the Discovery Institute face a similar buzz saw in their pursuit of intelligent design hypothesis, and then are taunted by the censors for not being published in peer reviewed journals.

Get that? His “colleagues at the Discovery Institute,” which we translate as his “fellow creationists” are “taunted by the censors for not being published in peer reviewed journals.” Censors? He means scientists, the ones who review manuscripts to see if they meet their journal’s standards. They know creationist trash when they see it.

We continue with Smith’s paragraph:

Indeed, when Richard Sternberg published an ID article, he was attacked and slandered so mercilessly by the Darwinists, that it sent a clear and threatening message to all other journal editors that they publish ID-oriented papers at peril to their own careers.

He refers to what we’ve mentioned before, the peer review scandal, involving a paper by Discoveroid senior fellow Stephen Meyer, which was slipped into print by Richard von Sternberg, who was then managing editor of the Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington.

That’s all West copied from his creationist colleague — just a small collection of creationist gripes. If for some reason you want to read Smith’s entire blog article, go here: The New Inquisition: Ideology’s Corruption of Science.

So, dear reader, what have we learned from this? Well, we see how the Discoveroid mindset is — cough, cough — gaining momentum. What next? Maybe these guys will show that their ideas are winning even greater support — and to do that they’ll start quoting favorable comments from their own mothers.

Copyright © 2009. The Sensuous Curmudgeon. All rights reserved.

add to del.icio.usAdd to Blinkslistadd to furlDigg itadd to ma.gnoliaStumble It!add to simpyseed the vineTailRankpost to facebook

. AddThis Social Bookmark Button . Permalink for this article

16 responses to “Discovery Institute: ClimateGate Obsession Continues

  1. DI come unhinged? That would imply that they were “hinged” in the first place wouldn’t it? After all they are in an active campaign to deny reality itself which isn’t a good starting point. Anyway, at least Climategate has given you some good new material. Calling Ray Comfort an idiot was getting a little boring.

  2. Albanaeon says: “Anyway, at least Climategate has given you some good new material.”

    Who cares about the planet? Buncha sissies! I’m only interested in the creationist reaction. This latest post has to be some kind of record. West only wrote one sentence of his own, and I turned it into an article.

  3. “This latest post has to be some kind of record. West only wrote one sentence of his own, and I turned it into an article.” And showing how pathetic there non-work really is. I mean come on, this is apparently their chance to “prove” the global science conspiracy and all they can do is copy and paste each others arguments? Guess they’ve just been doing that for so long, they don’t have any idea on doing something new.

  4. DI is using the “They’re ALL Enrons!” Argument: in essence, because executives at Enron behaved badly, therefore ALL Big Business executives behave badly.

    In the extent case, there is information suggesting that a small group of tight knit climate scientists massaged their data, didn’t share their data or their “secret sauce” with skeptical researchers, truncated data on their graphs that was “inconvenient” to say the least, gamed the peer-review process for their own benefit and to the detriment of skeptics, and plotted and schemed to obstruct access to information responsive to Freedom of Information requests.

    So be it. Even if we assume the worst case scenario wrt to the clowns associated with the CRU Data Liberation Scandal, it does not disprove Darwin; it does not prove ID is right, or even has been denied the rightful opportunity to make its scientific case, anymore than Enron’s sleazy accounting tricks, or Maddoff’s Ponzi scam, prove that all executives of Big Business, and high powered Wall Street investors, are corrupt.

    The facts they are overlooking are strikingly “inconvenient” — in his Dover School Board testimony, pro ID witness Michael Behe admitted under cross examination that that the definition of science as currently accepted excluded ID, and that in order to shoe-horn it in, the definition would have to be relaxed such that astrology would also fit within the expanded definition.

    And since ID isn’t science as we presently define it, it has no scientific case to make. Ergo, no matter what the outcome of the CRU Data Liberation Scandal, may be, it can have no bearing on the validity of ID or any other variant of Creationism. And even if it were scientific, the burden of proof remains on them to demonstrated that Big Science conspired to thwart legitimate attempts on their part to do and publish scientific research.

    The bad behavior of small group of climate scientists does not imply biologists are conspiring to suppress scientific evidence that the world is 6000 years old, or any other happy crap the DI is peddling these days.

  5. This latest post has to be some kind of record. West only wrote one sentence of his own, and I turned it into an article.

    But that’s the very essence Creationism: the wholesale generation of conclusions based on a trivial investment in facts.

  6. longshadow, I doubt many people who read this blog would disagree with you. As for overlooking inconvenient facts, well, that would be just about everything. The fact they are latching on to something so outside of their realm of “expertise” to justify themselves is just another proof on how small the ground they have to stand on is.

  7. Albanaeon says:

    The fact they are latching on to something so outside of their realm of “expertise” to justify themselves is just another proof on how small the ground they have to stand on is.

    The Discoveroids aren’t latching on to anything about climatology. What they want to be aligned with is the GW deniers (not merely skeptics) who are also science-deniers. There are political types who are not only creationists, but they also dislike the politics of the GW boys, so they attack the GW science. So there’s some political overlap. But any serious climate scientist, who happens to dispute the “consensus” opinion, would be horrified to be lumped in with creationists.

  8. Who sane wouldn’t be horrified to be lumped in with creationists? After all, they seem to believe the Dark Ages were some sort of second Eden or something. Just about everyone could be said to be woefully undereducated, so they wouldn’t complain about pesky things like logic and other challenges to their power structure. And if anyone got to thinking to much, no real bars to any method (coercion, torture, death) to make them see the error of their ways. Oh and not to mention all the power and money that could be concentrated in their hands as “holder of the truth.”

    Thinking about it, this tact really isn’t new to them, is it? Its just a continuation of “scientist=human=fallible=obviously mistaken because we have TRVTH!” rational.

  9. Curmudgeon: “More ‘expelled’ material? We’re not interested in that.”

    I am, because I think I am personally caught up in it. As you might know, in April 2007 I posted on Talk.Origins a request for proposals (or “pre-proposals”) to develop alternate theories of human origins. I have “advertised” the RFP on several other blogs, so surely some Discoveroids or other prominent anti-evolutionists have noticed it.

    But I have yet to see one proposal – note that on TO it would be “peer reviewed” by creationists as well as “Darwinists,” so they have nothing to lose. The only thing I can think of is that someone is intercepting them. IOW censoring them, and expelling those “scientists.”

    Can someone help me find the culprit? ;-)

  10. Frank. It is because any sucesssful ID theory is so abhorrent to nature that the Designer goes back in time to nullify said theory.

  11. As a geologist and AGW skeptic, giving comfort to anti science types is one of the things that worries me most. Although it can be a pretty handy filter. Any skeptic who believes in ID can be automatically excluded as a useful source, e.g. Christopher Booker.

  12. dNorrisM: “It is because any sucesssful ID theory is so abhorrent to nature that the Designer goes back in time to nullify said theory.”

    Wait, I thought it was the Higgs bosons that did that? This sciency stuff can be so confusing. ;-)

  13. Tomato Addict says: “Wait, I thought it was the Higgs bosons that did that?”

    My time machine does it too. Just when I’m ready for the final test — whammo! Gotta start all over again.

  14. James F says: “Success!”

    Congratulations.

  15. Success!

  16. I’m going to run a quick test of my time machine, hang on….