AE BB DB Explorer

Search Terms (separate with commas, no spaces):

form_srcid: dhogaza

form_srcid: dhogaza

form_cmd: view_author

Your IP address is

View Author detected.

view author posts with search matches:

Retrieve source record and display it.

Your IP address is


form_srcid: dhogaza

q: SELECT AUTHOR, MEMBER_NAME, IP_ADDR, POST_DATE, TOPIC_ID, t1.FORUM_ID, POST, POST_ID, FORUM_VIEW_THREADS from ib_forum_posts AS t1 LEFT JOIN (ib_member_profiles AS t2, ib_forum_info AS t3) ON (t1.forum_id = t3.forum_id AND = t2.member_id) WHERE MEMBER_NAME like 'dhogaza%' and forum_view_threads LIKE '*' ORDER BY POST_DATE ASC


DB_result: Resource id #6

Date: 2006/02/25 09:48:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
The point is that NeoDarwinian theory makes no prediction about how many generations it should take.  A theory that makes no verifiable or falsifiable predictions about macroevolutionary events isn't much of a theory.

Let's see ... ToE does not predict A, therefore ToE predicts nothing.

Even a second-rate engineer at Dell ought to be able to see how the second clause is not a logical consequence of the first.

Date: 2006/02/25 10:22:33, Link
Author: dhogaza
Do you think finding that superficial similarities extend to the genetic level comes as a shock to anyone, NeoDarwinian dogmatist or not?

It should come as a shock to anyone whose biological knowledge is based on a reading of "Of Pandas and People".  Like you wanted to have happen to students in Dover, PA, Dave ...

As far as the PicoFarad nick goes, perhaps Dave has chosen it because, as Wikipedia states, in the laboratory a picofarad is known as a "puff".  Which pretty much describes how substantial Dave's posts are.

Date: 2006/02/25 11:44:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Now I see a news writeup on some actual research that, while not supporting ID in anyway, uses the term "intelligent design" and while at first I thought it was being used sarcastically I noticed that the research was funded by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.

It is being used sarcastically, by the journalist.  If you read the article you'll see that the inspiration for the research project is evolutionary theory.

Mass transportation is a big issue in the Seattle area.  I haven't looked at the DI's proposals so don't know if they're lame or not, but I don't see any reason to disbelieve the Gates Foundation's explanation of their funding of the DI.  The granting organizations I've worked with in the non-profit world require that you spend the money on what you proposed in your grant application and provide the financial reports to prove it (often subject to audit).

Date: 2006/03/07 11:33:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Valerie sez:

"Individual photons do not have a blackbody temperature."

DaveStalin sez:

"I’ve had it with your crap, Valerie. This stuff is not hard to learn but you make no attempt, thinking you know it all already. Single photon calorimeter developed by NASA. Don’t bother commenting on UD for the next week. -ds"

Now, does the single photon calorimeter article Dave references claim athat individual photons have a blackbody temperature?  Does it in any way refute Valerie's obviously sound understanding of thermodynamics?

No.  The single photon calorimeter indirectly measures the energy of a photon by measuring how much the temperature of the device  rises when a photon is captured by an electron.  No where is it claimed that the photon itself has a temperature.

Quite a different thing.  Here's the first two paragraphs of the NASA article Dave references:

"Perhaps the most intriguing advance in X-ray astronomy instrumentation in the 1990s has been the development of single photon calorimeters, spearheaded by work at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. These devices detect X-rays by the temperature pulses they generate in a small absorber which is cooled to a fraction of a Kelvin.

When an X-ray stops in a detector, it gives all of its energy to one electron. That electron can rattle around in the detector and give energy to other electrons. All these excited electrons would rather go back to their original energy. They want to return to what is called the 'ground state'. Through scattering with other electrons or with vibrations in the solid itself, they can lose that extra energy. But that energy has to go somewhere. What it does is heat the solid and increase its temperature. If you measure the change in temperature, you can measure how much energy the X-ray originally had."

Date: 2006/03/07 18:29:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Faid: "Apparently, he googled up 'photon temperature kelvin' and picked up the first result without reading it."

Well, I'm not surprised at all.  Clearly DaveSnot either read without understanding that his reference made him look foolish (again?  Lord forbid!!!;), or hadn't read it at all.

Thanks for the Google search, though, that's funny (as in "DaveSnot's idiocy is further revealed, which is ALWAYS hilarious!")

Date: 2006/03/08 13:31:49, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, I think DougMoron and DenseSnot (I like that) are both for real.

Another question comes to mind based on a comment posted by John Davison at Uncommonly Dense.  Does Davison realize the blog is a spoof?

Date: 2006/03/19 12:57:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
"Remarking that the running, bipedal insectivore leaping after prey scenario is somewhat plausible, Denton nonetheless says that  "no known animal regularly catches flying insects by leaping after them"

Poorwill catch insects by perching quietly on the ground at night (their legs are too weak for them to stand) and leaping up (powered by their wings) and snatching them as they fly by.

Looks like Denton doesn't know guano about birds.

Date: 2006/03/20 12:06:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oooooh!  A global warming thread over at UD!

The first four comments rehash tiresome old claims ...

"Big Science on the public trough is most of the problem..."

Climatologists are scammers at the public trough!

"I’ve got my eye on 4000 acres in North Dakota where I’m going to plant bananas and coconuts."

Global warming will be good for us!

"Does anyone honestly believe that mankind could stop the next ice age from coming?"

Human activity couldn't possibly impact climate!

"volcanos spit out far more 'greehouse gasses' every year than humans do."

Sigh ...

Date: 2006/03/21 11:05:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
And he doesn't seem to realize that it's an opera, not a play ...

Date: 2006/03/22 10:19:01, Link
Author: dhogaza
Freeman Dyson's a bright guy, but his statements about global warming are right out of Lonborg's thoroughly debunked "The Skeptical Environmentalist".

Date: 2006/03/26 13:12:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
This new UD blogger, Barry the lawyer, is something else ...

What do the data show? Here I stand on the shoulders of giants. Johnson, Behe, Dembski and others have shown me the gaping lacunas in the Darwinist project.

If those three are giants in his eyes, he must be a native of Lilliput...

Date: 2006/04/03 10:39:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Btw, if you follow the link for the lass who wrote this, she is clearly another dedicated biologist who agrees with ID.

I couldn't help myself.  I had to follow the link and read some of her thoughts on Intelligent Design and Creation.  She sums things up ...
As I continue my thoughts on Intelligent Design and Creation over the next few posts, bear in mind that all my comments are based on an unshakable belief that we will never make a scientific “discovery” that contradicts Scripture.

Date: 2006/04/05 08:23:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
A while ago on your blog, someone asked if there was an email address for people outside of Baylor to send emails to concerning Beckwith’s tenure. We have set one up now and here is all the information ...

We do have some guidelines, however.

1. If you’re involved with intelligent design (director of a center or a fellow, etc.) we ask that you do not make mention to that. Baylor is already bothered by the intelligent design movement from the time of Dr. William A. Dembski and might be afraid to associate themselves with Dr. Francis J. Beckwith if a mass amount of emails come in saying how dynamic Beckwith is in the intelligent design field.

So they want prominent IDers to support Beckwith's tenure.  Why?  Because he's an ID supporter.  But ... don't DARE be honest and mention the ID word when you write your letter of support.  Hide the real reason you support his being tenured.

Another example of fundamentalist christian ethics at work ...

Date: 2006/04/05 09:50:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
Isaac who?

The Isaac Newton of Information Science, Dembski.

Meanwhile, on the "ACLU was in cahoots with the newly elected Dover School Board" thread:
I am pretty sure that the case utterly hinged on the constitutional issue of the establishment clause. Judge Jones’s decision clearly states that ID=religion. In fact, that is what the whole case argued. I read the whole grueling thing. They put a bunch of religious appologists on the stand for ID and determined ID to be religious.

When activist judges create the legal reality to support the meme (ID=religion), then researchers in the ID sciences have more and more trouble getting grants, christians are made laughingstocks, and the foundations of our society tremble.

When America no longer calls itself a Christian Nation, we have lost and our children will suffer.

Comment by Doug — April 5, 2006 @ 10:23 am

Let's see ... Judge Jones wrongly decided that ID=religion.  This has turned christians into laughingstocks and the foundations of our society tremble because we'll no longer be a Christian nation but ID is SCIENCE and has nothing to do with religion, blast it!

Hmmm...I'm confused.

Date: 2006/04/08 08:48:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
New thread on Uncommon Descent, John Horgan commenting on a meeting that took place during his fellowship in Cambridge (UK) last summer...
Some of the Christian speakers’ views struck me as inconsistent, to say the least. None of them supported intelligent design, the notion that life is in certain respects irreducibly complex and hence must have a divine origin...

But ... but ... I thought the designer might be a Little Green Man From Outer Space, not God!  Someone needs to get these folks on the same page :)

Date: 2006/04/08 08:54:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Hmmm, interesting, on reading the entire essay by Horgan it is clear that he's an agnostic and no supporter of ID.  The snippet posted by Dembski does not make this clear at all...

Date: 2006/04/08 09:49:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
This is too beautiful to keep buried at UD:
Not that anyone has expressed the least bit of interest in this, but yes, I am Red Reader. I’ve come out from behind my pseudonym. But I did it for a very good reason.

Since the day Dr. Dembski turned moderation over to DaveScot and allowed several others to start posting here, it seems to me that the blog has become even more professional and more evidence based.

My eyes buggeth out ... DaveScot's made the blog more professional?  Oh well, the best is yet to come ...
(Please do not take this to mean it wasn’t so before: just that the small cadre of contributors here has sharpened and honed the defense of ID in positive and productive ways.)

I kept posting as Red Reader for a while, but that pseudonym seems out of place now because of the stepped-up emphasis on checkable sources.

P.S.S. Another reason for using my real name is I too hope to earn posting priviledges here oneday with posts reflecting historical perspectives on the ID debate.

And we, too, hope that Red Reader is given the keys to the blog!

Date: 2006/04/08 12:39:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
Red Reader's real name is Glenn.  He posts now under the handle "glennj".  He's also used his new handle on PT.

Date: 2006/04/08 14:11:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
It's ruining your weekend?  Personally, I enjoy Red Reader and Michaels7's neck-and-neck race to see which is the dumbest poster on UD.  Red Reader has the history, the pedigree, a vast body of work.  But Michaels7 is doing well in the spoiler role...

Date: 2006/04/08 18:17:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
UD has finally imploded to the point where they almost make AIG and Dr. Dino look credible by comparison.

ONLY by comparision, though :)

Date: 2006/04/09 05:36:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
Come to think of it, Joseph's in the running for dumbest poster at UD:
Even though educated people understand that ID is not about supernatural causation (by the time we figured out the intelligence was supernatural, if that were the case, it would be too late to deny the inference anyway), how does any alternative to ID get away with claiming a solely natural causation when it is obvious that natural processes cannot account for the origins of nature because natural processes ONLY exist IN nature?

IOW regardless of your stance, except those saying nature didn’t have an origin, which is another can of worms altogether, it all comes down to some non or super-natural process and THAT is why the debate is about intelligent vs. unintelligent processes (mechanisms).

ID isn't about supernatural causation, however "it all comes down to some ... super-natural process".  I guess "supernatural" is somehow different than "super-natural"? :)

Date: 2006/04/09 06:10:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is really DS who he says he is, or is he really some 14yo who just read his first A.Clarke novel?

In an age when the President of the United States meets with a science fiction author to get schooled on climate science, nothing should surprise us.

Date: 2006/04/09 12:01:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sadly, Davetard is learning from Panda's Thumb

The title of the thread on Panda's Thumb is "Libel Laws and Scoundrel Refuges".  Has Dave just admitted to being a scoundrel?

Date: 2006/04/10 05:51:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
Amusingly, Davetard just put up blog stats to show how successful they are and how fast they're growing

Well, I know I take a look at UD much more often now that the inmates are running the asylum.  How many people look when they pass a train wreck?  How may people look when they pass a train that's not wrecked?  I think that's the phenomena that's being measured.

Date: 2006/04/12 12:45:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
All biology, paleontology, genetic, biochemical, and related reasearch is thus ID research because ID relies on evidence without regard to who found the evidence or what they were looking for when they discovered it.

Dave's at it again ...

If all research is ID research then why do IDers ignore the fruits of that research that show that Behe, Dembski et al are carrying their maximum allotment of excrement?

Date: 2006/04/18 07:10:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, I made a couple of posts there.  The first includes Hovind's trial date for tax evasion.  The second's a response to his comment about Australia:
'Speaking of Australia, when a British friend of mine was going through customs the Australian customs officer asked him if he’d ever been convicted of a felony. With a stiff upper lip my friend replied, “I wasn’t aware that was still an entrance requirement.”'

The Brits started transporting felons to Australia after the United States won its independence.  Care to guess where they transported them to while we were still a set of British colonies?

Date: 2006/04/18 07:45:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
And Virginia, and Maryland, and the rest of the South I believe.

Those states that provided most of the Americans who migrated to Dave's home state of Texas, in other words!

Date: 2006/04/18 08:31:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
All those wonderful people who now vote for George Bush and who want ID taught in schools.

Dave really does have a talent for stepping in excreted organic matter, doesn't he?

Date: 2006/04/19 12:54:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, Dave's on record in regard to the income tax ...
Are you really trying to claim that religion should be carte blanche for
completely ignoring the law?

No dear, in this case just building codes and income taxes. I would remind you (or instruct you as the case may be) that the United States got along just fine without building codes or income taxes for *anyone* for a very long time. I would be on Hovind’s side even if his claim had nothing to do with religion. The fact that he is a minister just adds insult to injury. I’m very much a libertarian and the best bit of advice I ever heard when it comes to gov’t is to make a rule that for every new law and new bureaucratic position made two old ones have to be unmade. -ds

"in this case just building codes and income taxes ... I would be on Hovind’s side even if his claim had nothing to do with religion."

So Dave beliefs that people should be able to ignore the federal income tax law, despite its being enabled by a Constitutional Amendment.

This is great stuff!

Date: 2006/04/20 06:25:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh boy, some software guy is using specified complexity to determine the so-called intelligence of a program he helped write.

Apparently this proves that specified complexity reveals something about biology somehow, but I haven't figured out how.

So who is this John A. Horst that Dembski's so proud of?  I find four papers of his on the NIST website, with one cite between them.

I also found this book review at Amazon:

"If you are a Christian parent, I highly suggest you read this book. To be sure, there is great danger [to] the "normal" folks on campus these days: hedonists, atheists, agnostics, materialists, cynics, environmentalists, and the like. However, as this book reveals, there is also danger (particularly to sincere young people) from those who appear like they are super sincere followers of the Truth and the Way, but who are fanatics in the worst sense and keep their followers from marriage, home, work, and many other activities not only lawful for Christians, but essential to living out the Christian life.

I teach a high school boys Bible study and, as a result of reading this book, I plan to include a section on the dangers of fanaticism in the study."

ID has nothing to do with religion, that's for sure!

Date: 2006/04/20 06:58:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
heh heh ...

I've been banned with the COOLEST graphic!

Date: 2006/04/20 22:00:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
The latest from Dembski proving, without a doubt, that Intelligent Design has NOTHING to do with religion.
An essay that employs Newcomb’s paradox to show how natural evil can be a consequence of human sin in a world where natural evil nonetheless exists before the advent of humanity

Dembski's cutting-edge ID blog

Date: 2006/04/22 07:56:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
I suspect that Barry A has left the asylum for good.  He was too sane for that group.

Date: 2006/04/22 08:22:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Can you imagine what it would have been like, to have a group blog consisting of Davetard, DougMoron, SalCordova, and Larry Falafelman? God. That would have been like the Dream Team of tard.

Well, DaveTard and John A. Deliriuson have both commented on Larry's blog so far.  This should be fun.

Date: 2006/04/22 08:32:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, Larry's blog promises to be great fun ...

First we have DaveTard:
This is great fun. I still post there [Panda's Thumb] on occasion since they never figured out a reliable way to stop anonymous proxies. What's really fun is to make them think you're a different banned commenter by using stereotyped expressions. I've lost count of how many times they've thought I was John Davison.

Followed a bit later by John A. Deliriuson:
If you want a free course in deception just ask DaveScot. He knows all the angles. Trust me.

Date: 2006/04/23 08:25:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
Heh, looks like my anonymous post comparing Larry's blog to Comedy Central sorta sent JAD off the deep end.

That thread's hilarious.

Date: 2006/04/23 09:04:17, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yes, there was a post pointing to Nick's piece, and it has been removed.

As I pointed out over at the Design Paradigm, Dave's question unintentionally makes it clear that ID is not science.

“Describe a scientific method by which the natural evolution of the flagella can be falsified.”

Dave, of course, asks because he believes it is impossible to do so.

Either ID is a scientific attack on this question that fails to falsify the claim that the flagella evolved naturally, or it is a successful attack that's not science.

Which is it, DaveTard? :)

Date: 2006/04/27 11:40:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
I hate that scientific literacy has been painted by so many people as a liberal trait

I always wondered what Edward Teller and friends thought about that ...

Date: 2006/04/28 06:50:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
The reason for the variance we find in the legends is that many of them are simply oral traditions passed down through the generations without the benefit of scrupulous copying of written records that the Christian Scriptures have enjoyed.

The Old Testament was passed down orally through generations. The four Gospels were all written long after the death of Jesus, differ in details.  I think it's Mark for which anthropologists have found several different endings, isn't it?  It's hard for all these to be the inerrant word of God ...

A Super Intelligent Being would be expected to design highly sophisticated machines and systems.

On the other hand, a Super-Duper Intelligent Being wouldn't have to work.  So why would that Being bother?  It would probably just sit around and get stoned all eon.

My hypothesis is as scientific and defensible as yours.

Date: 2006/04/29 09:46:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect.

I could swear that I read somewhere that Adam was missing a rib ...

Date: 2006/04/29 09:46:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
When the first two people were created, they were physically perfect.

I could swear that I read somewhere that Adam was missing a rib ...

Date: 2006/04/29 10:55:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
This has got to be Dembski's dumbest post yet

I checked twice thinking it had to be DaveScot or one of the other lower-caste fruitcakes but nope, it's Dembski.

"Where instruction and indoctrination are the same thing . . .

I understand this university evolved from a lower form of educational institution."

Charles Darwin University's main campus is in the city of Darwin, Northern Territories.

D'oh, Bill.  Like really, man.

Date: 2006/04/29 17:47:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dave, you've decided to take the YEC position—that the earth is some thousands of years old—which is the hardest position imaginable to defend. For scientists, refuting YEC isn't like shooting fish in a barrel, it's like shooting a barrel full of nothing but fish.

Well, our life-blood should tell us that refuting YEC is like shooting a barrel full of crud oil ...

Oil being the primary foundation upon which our country's well-being rests.

Date: 2006/04/30 15:46:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, this YEC thread ("Dinosaur shocker!") gets better and better

Is science totally in error about its perception of age? I have seen a heck of a lot of evidence for an old earth. The best evidence I have found involves hunting down details on suggestions made by the YEC community.

Glad I wasn't drinking any beer when I read that!  I would've spewed it all over my laptop screen.  It gets better yet, he believes that the discovery is evidence that the dinosaur didn't die all that long ago ...and that this is making scientists COWER.
I would be incredibly shocked to discover that dinosaurs really lived in the time of man. However, this evidence should excite the scientific community, not make them cower.

Date: 2006/05/02 04:29:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Certainly. I'm adding it to the list. I love anything where there are dark and complicated secrets about society/government/religion.

A bit off-topic, but if you haven't read it, you might well enjoy the first of the Holmes-Watson mysteries, "A Study in Scarlet".

No sex, no rock-'n'-roll, but plenty of cocaine and bad violin.   And the novella wanders through the darker corners of the Mormon world in the American intermountain west, as interpreted by an Englishman (Doyle) who apparently had never been there.  Of course, my enjoyment of the story may be colored by being a non-Mormon who's spent a lot of time in Mormon country ... early Mormon history has its dark barely whispered-about moments, after all!

"dark and complicated secrets about ...religion"

Well, that pretty much covers Doyle's plot!

Date: 2006/05/05 09:09:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
I love these guys ...
However, more importantly, physicians have doctor’s degrees. By definition they are reasonably intelligent and well schooled. However, they are the doctorates that are the most accessible to the masses.

Someone thinks that an MD is the same as a PhD.  Apparently an MD is a doctorate degree because we call MDs doctors.
If doctors publicly state that they don’t believe that evolution has been proved, it allows those uf us with less education to feel more comfortable with our view. (When you get to talking with educated people, they often leave you feeling like a stupid little worm. When there’s some big boys on your side of the field, the field feels a lot less intimidating.)

The above speaks for itself :)

Date: 2006/05/08 18:16:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
So BarryA, once one of their bloggers, is being treated like us common scum.  Posts deleted.

Gosh, I hope his faith is deep and complete.  The actions of God's prophets might discourage him, otherwise.

Date: 2006/05/13 11:22:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Padian simply isn’t playing with a full deck and one has to hope he never decides to murder anyone because he isn’t able to distinguish between killing a crowd of strangers (as do suicide bombers) and a single person against whom he holds a grudge (doctors who perform abortions).

Apparently Dave feels that some murders are, to some degree, justified.

(the parentheticals are mine)

Date: 2006/05/13 15:07:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
Since Barry loves quote mining so much, I've indulged in the practice myself, using the last few sentences of his post as ore:
In other words, it is becoming clearer with every passing year that the evidence does not support ... ID ... and creationists ... know this.  ... When dealing with yet more non-confirming data, they can either not mention it or try to deal with it. If they take the former option they leave themselves open to charges of sloppy work or even fraud when the evidence inevitably comes to light.

Yes, Barry, quote mining is an honorable way to debate, yes indeed.

Of course, the funny thing is that my quote mine of Barry's post is far more accurate than the original entry!

Date: 2006/05/16 12:35:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
Man, the "Haeckel Fest Awaits" thread is amazing.

Not only are these people ignorant of biology, but they appear to be thoroughly ignorant of history as well.  They seem to really believe that Christians don't have a history of racism, that the ranking of races so common in our society over such a long period of time is somehow a result of the ToE.

Despite the fact of European racism towards blacks and Jews was prevelant long before Charles Darwin was even born.  Are these folks truly ignorant of Luther's virulent anti-semitism?  Of the fact that planters in the South justified slavery by using scripture to make the claim that slavery was the natural, God-approved state of "inferior" Africans?

Etc etc etc.

Date: 2006/05/17 13:47:32, Link
Author: dhogaza

You seem to imply white European Protestant BAD---
Black, Jew "anybodyelse" nice

How the #### do you get that out of my post given the thread at UD that I was responding to?

Date: 2006/05/17 14:32:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Are you going to back up your claims or not.

If you Google "Martin Luther anti-semitism" you get 653,000 hits.

After you've read them all, perhaps we can talk history.

Date: 2006/05/19 08:25:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dave just disproved evolution in his basement lab!

Hey, I'm not kidding, he (thinks) he really did!

Edit: oops, I might be wrong - he never says the lab's in his basement :)

Date: 2006/05/21 09:59:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Anyone who hasn’t seen this two-part program by Dawkins needs to see it. I understand it is not available in this country (and for good reason — given the sensibilities of Americans, it would be a public relations disaster for evolution this side of the Atlantic). I’ve got the two-part program as two 260Mbyte wmv files. If someone has unlimited bandwidth and is willing to upload the files (perhaps at lower resolution) on, say, a Cayman server (where there may be fewer worries about copyrights), let me know.

So the kind folks who run UD not only lie for Jesus, but will steal copyrighted video for Jesus?

Date: 2006/05/22 06:10:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
It's DaveTard, not The Wayne Newton of Information Theory, that posted that story.  Though Dembski did respond with a "right on!" comment.

And Dembski HAS been extremely active today.  What's up?  Someone mix a little meth into his oatmeal?  He's so hyperactive he's disproven evolution several times and it's not even noon yet!

Date: 2006/05/22 08:20:14, Link
Author: dhogaza
To everyone who’s pointed out that the ACLU story is a fabrication according to - that’s hardly the point.

Yes, we know, Dave.  We know that the real point is that you folks willingly and continuously lie for Jesus.

Date: 2006/05/22 13:28:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
Taciturnus proves the mind is not merely material!
For example, if our minds are purely material, how is it that we can both think of the same number, “2" for instance? The matter that makes up your head and the matter that makes up my head are not the same matter, and if thinking “2" is nothing more than a rearrangement of matter in our respective brains, then “2" cannot be identical for us since the arrangement of matter will not be exactly identical in both our brains; and even if it was, it isn’t the same matter. Yet we clearly CAN think of the same number “2", therefore our minds cannot be merely material.

Date: 2006/05/23 12:28:17, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dembski wants a Hefner award

The day was getting dull.  Never fear, though, The Wayne Newton of Information Science has just added a new post for our enjoyment.

Date: 2006/05/24 09:22:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
Its obvious that this is a waste of time.  Its a shame but very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory.

Posts made by random people on an internet forum are "very revealing about the current state of evolutionary theory"?

What a hoot!

Creationist - go home, and read the Bible until you go blind.  Please.

Date: 2006/05/25 12:38:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
More ID science please - less politics.

Do you think this person realizes they're calling for UD to shut down? :)

Date: 2006/05/31 08:10:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
I'm starting to think Dembski's totally lost it ...

Does he think this post is any kind of argument for anything at all?
You get the idea. The correct answer to every question is C): “Hack her to death with a kitchen knife.” Likewise, with Darwinism (aka Darwinian theory, the blind watchmaker, mechanistic evolution, naturalistic evolution, unintelligent evolution, etc.), the answer to every question over how some complex biological system formed is:

C) Hack to death all organisms that don’t have that system or some precursor to it.

We can thank Darwin for that insightful answer. The short-hand for it is NATURAL SELECTION.

High comedy, given that Dembski's response to every question over how some complex biological system form is "The Designer did it".

Date: 2006/06/03 15:05:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
No paleontologists reported finding any transitional forms today – yet another stunning confirmation of the theory of punctuated equilibrium.

Seriously, I hope some of our Darwinists friends who post comments on this site can help me understand how evolutionary theorists deal with their cognitive dissonance when they consider the issue of gradualism and the general absence of transitional forms from the fossil record.

Of course he doesn't want to be helped.

What I want to know, though, is why aren't there engineering prototypes in the fossil record?

Date: 2006/06/04 08:54:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
It was reported above that the 90’s saw a lot of the gaps in the fossil record filled in. Someone must have forgotten to give the memo to Schwartz, Carroll, and Patterson, who wrote the following toward the end of the 90’s:

“[We] are still in the dark about the origin of most major groups of organisms."

So, let's see, we're in the dark about the origin of most - but not all - major groups of organisms, therefore evolution is disproved, he thinks.

Totally ignoring the fact that we have detailed fossil records for the evolution of critters like whales ... that "most" is not synonymous with "all".

Amazing blinders he and those like him wear.

Date: 2006/06/05 10:03:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Tinabrewer leaves  me gasping ...
Jerry: “Science gets corrupt when it gets political.” This is only the latest phase of why science is corrupt. Its root corruption is much deeper; science is the work of the intellect. It seeks to categorize and explain material reality. The real “leader” in human life should always be the spirit, which seeks communion with the Creative Will of God. Science as it is currently practiced desires the overthrow of this natural hierarchy, replacing wisdom and truth with data and facts.

Well, at least she's honest about why she's anti-science.

Date: 2006/06/06 09:25:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
That DuCrank guy who's shown up recently's pretty funny, too:
Introns do not prove the identity of the creator, but they certainly could be considered to be his signature or copyright. Legally, this alone should be enough to chase the egg-poachers out of the hen-house.

We don't know the identity of the creator, but he owns the copyright to His Bits of DNA!

Date: 2006/06/08 10:17:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
No, I haven’t really heard from Behe or Gonzalez lately but maybe I missed Behe and Gonzalez because I was preoccupied in hearing ID recently supported by the President of the United States, the Governor of Texas, and the Governor of Florida as well as some U.S. Senators and other state governors.

What Wesley and his motley crew just don’t get is that the science argument in ID vs. NDE is over.

Let's see, a failed baseball team owner and a bunch of right-wing lawyers turned politician support ID, therefore the scientific argument is over.

My, oh my.

Date: 2006/06/08 10:41:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Bilbo, at least, understands that so-called ID researchers aren't part of the scientific community (and therefore presumably don't do science):

And I think the lesson we should learn is that trying to get ID taught in public schools is counterproductive to our goals. I suggest that instead we should focus on dialogue with the Scientific community at the college level...

Though my guess is that he'd object to my interpretation of his statement.

Date: 2006/06/08 12:55:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Now we have this dude Charliecr posting ...
When was the last time an evolutionist contributed something to science ?

The display of ignorance over there just gets more and more mind-blowing.

Date: 2006/06/08 18:22:42, Link
Author: dhogaza

I make my own assessment of liberals based on the policies they promote and their methodologies for implementing those policies. I have yet to meet an advocate of (modern) liberalism in government who didn't let it be known that while, perhaps, he was not the one to tell me how best to live my life, the bureaucrats in the agency he was endorsing should do so.

This can't be allowed to pass unchallenged.

Give us some specific examples, please.  How are liberals in government telling you how to live YOUR life.

Again, be specific or (feeling rude) STFU.  Of course, since you've actually experienced liberals telling you how you should live your life, you won't be offended by my request.  You won't STFU because, of course, your life is full of personal examples of liberal politicians telling you how to live your personal life.

So - lay it out there, dude!  I'm 52, and I've never experienced the phenomena you describe, so I'm truly, honestly interested in your examples.

Date: 2006/06/08 18:32:00, Link
Author: dhogaza

I make my own assessment of liberals based on the policies they promote and their methodologies for implementing those policies. I have yet to meet an advocate of (modern) liberalism in government who didn't let it be known that while, perhaps, he was not the one to tell me how best to live my life, the bureaucrats in the agency he was endorsing should do so.

Of course, we all know it is liberals who tell us how to live our lives.  Obviously, liberals tell us we must not have sex with someone of the same gender as we are.  Liberals tell us we shouldn't enter into legally-binding life-long relationships with someone of our own gender.  Liberals tell us we shouldn't consume recreational drugs.  Liberals suggest that Christians in our country are #1 and that Christian non-profits should be paid to help the poor while trying their best to convert them to Christianity.  Liberals insist that Texas should have the right to send gay men who have sex in their own home to prison for lengthy periods of time.

Yes, liberals are those who want government to control our lives.

Not conservatives.

Fortunately, I don't own an irony meter, so mine's not broken.

But I do own an honesty meter, and, Spike dear, you've busted it to bits.

Date: 2006/06/09 11:21:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sorry, it wasn't my intent to derail the thread into a political discussion.  Just one quick point of accuracy, though...
You will get no argument form me that it is the neo-con faction of the conservatives who interfere in other people’s lives in the ways you list.

Actually, it's the Christian Right faction.

Neo-conservatives are something else altogether - from WikiPedia:

"Neoconservatism (or neocon) refers to the political movement, ideology, and public policy goals of "new conservatives" in the United States, that are relatively unopposed to "big government" principles and believe in limited restrictions on social spending.

In the context of United States foreign policy, neoconservative has another, narrower definition. Critics [citation needed] define it as interventionist with hawkish views on foreign policy. Supporters define it as advocating the use of military force, unilaterally if necessary, to replace autocratic regimes with democratic ones. This view competes with liberal internationalism, realism, and non-interventionism.

The prefix "neo" can denote that many of the movement's founders, originally liberals, Democrats or from socialist backgrounds, were new to conservatism, but can also refer to the comparatively recent emergence of this "new wave" of conservative thought, which coalesced in the early 1970s from a variety of intellectual roots in the decades following World War II. It also serves to distinguish the ideology from the viewpoints of "old" or traditional American conservatism."

Traditional American conservatives were historically isolationist, against social service, etc, in stark contrast to true neo-conservatives.

Hopefully straightening out definitions won't lead to more political discussion, I just get tired of the misuse of the word "neo-conservative".

Date: 2006/06/09 11:33:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, Dembski is seriously suggesting that ID be renamed Intelligent Evolution.  Why?  Because ID has gotten such bad press recently.

Which brings the following from one Marcos:
“There is no use changing the name from “intelligent design” to “intelligent evolution”. The intractable Darwinist opposition will react to the “new” concept in exactly the same way-with relentless criticism and abuse.”

Yep. And the new sound bite would be “Intelligent Evolution is Intelligent Design in a cheap tuxedo”.

(Marcos wrote the response).

What's so funny, of course, is that Dembski's proposing a relabelling, not a "new theory".  So it would be ACCURATE to describe IE as "ID in a cheap tuxedo".

Another shot-to-the-foot by one of Dembski's admirers.

Date: 2006/06/13 07:15:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dumbski finds someone dumber than himself to quote ...
A fundamental problem with the Appellate decision (in Cobb) is that it appears to accept an implicit assumption that “those who endorse evolution” do so because they have made a rational, independent evaluation of the scientific data offered as evidence for its truth.But if, in fact, they endorse evolution because they have chosen to give unquestioning deference to science experts, it may be appropriate to treat their position as simply another religious position, rather than being a position divorced from religion. This may affect the application of the constitutional test, if it appears that the plaintiffs are in effect trying to support their own religious views by suppressing the Sticker. The court should take evidence as to the reasons why, prior to filing the lawsuit, the particular individual plaintiffs “endorsed” evolution, rather than simply presume that their reasons for endorsing evolution were grounded in their science education. Surely plaintiffs who did not experience formal academic instruction in evolution should be questioned as to why they endorsed evolution prior to filing the lawsuit.

Don't they understand that anyone bright enough to replace the word "evolution" with "physics" or "chemistry" will see how insanely stupid this is?

Date: 2006/06/16 09:56:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
jhudson sez
I am not sure how a bird can be considered a ‘missing link’ for birds. This is like my grandfather being considered a missing link between myself and my great-grandfather.

He is SO CLOSE to understanding common descent with modification, yet so far, far away ...

Date: 2006/06/16 11:06:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
DaveTard ...
Fossil collecting is at best a harmless hobby. To call it important science is trivializing science. Important science to do with birds is finding a cure for bird flu or getting chickens to lay bigger eggs with less feed

Ah, so paleontology is "at best a harmless hobby".  Dave's sweeping Tardisms are getting more outlandish by the day.

You know, someone should tell Dave that delusions of grandeur are one sign that you MAY be experiencing a manic episode.

Date: 2006/06/19 09:48:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
Too paraphrase something that was said of the spotted owl during the Pacific Northwest old-growth wars ...

If we didn't have DaveTard, we'd need to invent him!

Though nothing we could some up with could match the banality, the stupidity, the psychotic nature of the real thing.

Date: 2006/06/19 10:05:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Clearly it's the work of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, known for planting false evidence which appears to support the literal inerrancy of the bible.   The FSM's intent is clearly to test the faith of the followers of the One True Designer.

Date: 2006/06/19 14:49:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Thomas Jefferson was a slave owner and held views about blacks that were typical of slave owners.

Conservative Americans should be burning the Declaration of Independence along with Origin of the Species, for consistency's sake.

Date: 2006/06/20 05:59:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
If global warming happens, they'd better *start praying* for evolution. Environmental change would be a catalyst for new species - and the end of some current ones.

Oh, don't worry, the intelligent space aliens who designed life on this planet will show up and fix things.

Most likely by getting rid of the species that messed up their beautifully designed world :)

Date: 2006/06/20 10:59:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
Non-intentional states, particularly in vision...

With all due respect, the color scheme on your site hurts my eyes, and the fonts are hard to read on my laptop's high-resolution screen.

Date: 2006/06/20 18:26:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
I’m an autodidact with a certified IQ north of 150 (MGCT and SAT tests)

SAT tests don't measure IQ.  You'd expect a genius like DaveTard to know that.

Date: 2006/06/20 18:31:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Such a marvelously profound rebuttal inspired me to conclude that I must agree with David Berlinski’s characterization of the Panda’s Thumb crowd:

“The Panda’s Thumb, on the other hand, is entirely low-market; the men who contribute to the blog all have some vague technical background - computer sales, sound mixing, low-level programming, print-shops or copy centers; they are semi-literate; their posts convey that characteristic combination of pustules and gonorrhea that one would otherwise associate with high-school toughs.”

Another case of projection by the ID crowd.

It's interesting that this would be posted since the basic theme at UD these days are that people with a vague technical background are those best situated to overthrow the despotic regime imposed by biologists on biology.

Date: 2006/06/21 04:26:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dembski's latest screed at UD ...
Evolutionary theory, in its grand macroevolutionary Darwinian form, flies in the face of the scientific method and should not be taught except as a discredited speculative hypothesis that properly belongs to nature religions and mystery cults and not to science.

Well, I guess he's set science straight!

Date: 2006/06/22 13:27:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
BTW, I heard a rumor that Dave eats live kittens for dinner.

And I heard that he woks the dog before dinner ...

Date: 2006/06/23 03:49:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, in his original post Sal's got to quote-mine to make his point
Nature:  It is easy to claim that a trait is due to natural selection, but responsible selection-based arguments should have substantial experimental mechanistic support, at least for the fact of selection. That’s not the state of most current evidence.

Lyin' Sal: Say it ain’t so. The state of most empirical evidence for natural selection having a major role in shaping evolution is lousy. Yet children are told the theory has Overwhelming Evidence.

The quote from Nature, of course, is in regard to the reviewed book's claim that resistance to mad cow disease in Europe is due to   their ancestors being selected for cannibalism.

Sal snips it out and presents it as though Nature's talking about all evidence supporting evolution in general.

Lyin' Sal lyin' for Jesus again.

Date: 2006/06/23 07:20:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Take AFD, shift his motivations from Jesus to wingnuttery, give him a subscription to Scientific American, and you have DaveScot.

At least AFD knows how to fly real airplanes :)

Date: 2006/06/28 07:46:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
I'm curious as to why the big bang is being lobbed at scientists. I'm relatively sure it was.. you know.. scientists who actually came up with that one. Is it another one of those "scientists did it but it's a victory for ID!" things?

Some believe that since the Big Bang postulates a beginning, it supports the Judeo-Christian creation myth.

Date: 2006/06/28 12:05:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
Blasphemy?  You want blasphemy?  How about the worshipping of false idols, will that do it for you?

Date: 2006/06/28 13:44:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
Looks like DaveTard has adopted Larry Farflungfantasyman as his legal expert

Also DaveTard seems to think that a non-profit should do its work pro-bono.  Tax code says nothing about that.  How silly.

Date: 2006/06/29 14:57:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yes, I notice that NCSE's robots.txt allows Wayback archiving, and UD's does not.  I wonder why that is.

Because even Dembski knows there's nothing at UD worth archiving? :)

Date: 2006/06/29 15:53:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
DaveTard's background revealed:
I never finished a college degree. As I was working my way through college, just as I was about to enter my junior year and become a computer science major, I went on a job interview at a company that designed and marketed portable computers (circa 1980). The VP of engineering there interviewed me and he was so impressed with my knowledge of computer hardware he wanted me full time in a design engineering position and offered me a salary far in excess of what newly degreed engineers were getting. Southern California was a hot market then and the personal computer industry was created by non-degreed people like Bill Gates, Michael Dell, and Steve Job, it was moving so fast universities couldn't keep up with industry, so degrees weren't much of a qualification in any case. In 1982 one of my portable computer designs made the cover of Popular Science magazine along with Adam Osbourne's, the Kaypro, and a few others. There followed 20 years of job hopping at ever higher salaries until in 1993 I landed a senior engineering position at Dell Computer Corporation in laptop R&D. Our laptops became the gold standard in reliability and battery life, and I became financially independent there from stock incentives and retired in 2000 to pursue other interests.

Now interesingly, my background's not that different in some ways.  I wrote a Basic compiler for the PDP-8 while in high school which was marketed worldwide.  The summer 'tween high school and university was spent writing a multiprocessing kernel for the same machine, making more money than my father while doing so.  And before graduating from university I co-wrote the compiler technology upon which my compiler technology company was founded (alas, the industry evolved, and we became extinct after fourteen years in business).

Not bragging, I'm sure many people here have far more impressive backgrounds.

My point is more along the lines that in the early days, it was very easy to become something of a star in the world of computing, software and hardware.  DaveTard's background isn't particularly unique, nor indicative of any particularly outstounding personal qualities other than decent engineering skills and the good fortune to sign on with Dell rather than, say, Digital.

And, I must say, designing laptops doesn't exactly put one at the top of the heap.  The heavy lifting in that world is done by those doing the chip, motherboard and I/O device designs.  Designing a laptop is mostly a glorified exercise in packaging.

And, of course, without software (or with, in the case of Windows), it is simply an overpriced doorstop.

Which is probably why DaveTard comes across as being so friggin' insecure.  He has good reason to be.

Oh ... my mom made me promise to get my degree, so unlike DaveTard, I did.

Date: 2006/06/30 09:01:34, Link
Author: dhogaza
Spider silk and diatom silica structures are just accidents. We can’t design stuff like this ourselves but when we take these two complex things found in nature and combine them then all of a sudden it’s a design! Wheeeeee! Aren’t we smart!

In other news, wood frame houses prove trees were designed ...

Date: 2006/07/01 05:27:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
This is one of the professors that Salvador trots out to show that ID is taught in college.  Unfortunately for Salvador, it looks like this professor will teach the truth.

Oh, the good professor's been very clear about where he stands from the beginning.  He is, after all, an evolutionary biologist.  Sal's attempts to exploit the fact that this course is being taught are about as honest as his claims that the scientific evidence supports ID.

Date: 2006/07/01 14:40:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
In the spirit of the World Cup, I thought I'd post this own goal by Mung:
What I am left wondering is, if computer simulations can demonstrate that it is possible to generate IC systems “based entirely on evolutionary principles (undirected random mutation and selection),” what was the basis of the rejection of IC on theoretical grounds?

I wonder if Judge Jones was aware of this letter, posted on the NCSE web site.

What does this tell us about IC?

A valid scientific and biological concept. Possible to study scientifically.

He seems to be missing the point ...

Date: 2006/07/03 13:15:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
Meanwhile, on UD, Sal actually thinks he's winning arguments when his ass is being kicked

Date: 2006/07/05 07:51:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
I think we should attack ID from this standpoint, as it has obviously caused an amoral act, and therefore is leading to the downfall of society.

You're forgetting that Sinning For Jesus is the shortest path to heaven.

Date: 2006/07/05 15:43:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
Listen, I know I was one of the first people to spout off about more science here, but um, would it be too much if we could do it in english?

I know you guys are all miles ahead of me, but my science teachers were never as interesting as my english teachers. (esp. Ms. O’Bannon who also had really great hair!;) In fact, let’s be nice and just say my science teachers were reeeeaaaalllllyyyy boring. Copying notes from the board written by a million year old bald guy just didn’t do it for me. I got A’s, but I don’t really know how.

Am I the only person who wonders if JanieBelle is really what she claims to be?  I'm starting to think someone's just having fun...

Date: 2006/07/06 12:39:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, JanieBelle totally has him by the balls, that's why I wondered above if she's what she claims to be, rather than a clever imposter out to impale Sal while disguised as a 17 year old who claims to be mostly clueless about science.

Here's more:

Ok, I get your drift. But isn’t that a calculation of one particular hunk of material becoming alive? Wouldn’t you have to multiply that times all the hunks of material in the universe? The universe is pretty darned big, so by that reasoning, it almost seems like it would equal out to 1/1, which would mean that life would not only probably happen, but it would almost HAVE to happen “accidently”. Not that that rules out design, just that it doesn’t seem like it rules out random chance, either.

Sorry if I’m missing something, I’m just trying to get an idea here. (I’m blonde, whatdaya want?)

Thanks again, by the way, for taking so much of your time to explain this to me. It’s really very kind.

Oh, my, how good.

Date: 2006/07/06 19:03:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
Genetic engineers are a fact. We know that intelligent agents can manipulate genomes for fun and profit and if you care to disagree I’ve got a bag full of genetically engineered rotten fruit to throw at you.

There we go again ... since humans can manipulate genomes, they're obviously designed.

Sort of like saying since humans can cleave diamonds into gemstones of greater value than those in nature, obviously diamonds were desigend to please us.

It can't possibly be that our race was stupid enough to fall for a DeBeers marketing plan put in place about 100 years ago.

Date: 2006/07/06 19:09:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
Hmmm, anyone else think Dave's being so friggin' rude to our 17-year-old Blond Princess means he's figured out she's not for real?

On her blog, he pretty much snuggled her snatch oh-so-hopefully just a few days ago, now on UD he's ravishing her (virtually, of course, and without her consent).

I'd hate to think I (with others agreeing with me) blew her cover for Dave et al.  Perhaps I should've kept quiet.

Date: 2006/07/07 06:43:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
I read a very interesting article once--New Yorker? Atlantic Monthly? Haarpers?--detailing how the deBeers cartel incited such a demand for diamonds, over the course of the 20th century, that diamonds went from ordinary gemstone to extraordinarily valuable. Great PR campaign.

Really OT here but it's been called by many the greatest marketing campaign in history.  The diamond engagement ring "tradition" was mostly made-up by deBeers.

A far more successful marketing campaign than that run by the Discovery Institute...

Date: 2006/07/07 11:14:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
   By the way, if anyone is aboard (Kate taught me that) Camp Lejeune and comes across a silver ring and a black thong in the middle of the woods, could I have the thong back? It's one of my favorites.

Sounds like she and Kate are more than just casual kissing friends.

Wonder how that will go down (hmmm I'm leavin' that) with the fundie crowd at UD?

Date: 2006/07/08 03:23:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Buried within DaveTard's idiotic statement is this gem:
liberal scientists

Can you think of a better two-word summation of what really drives the anti-science crowd?  What's frustrating is that there's really no way to reach people who truly believe that science is the result of (or results in) a particular political philosophy.

Date: 2006/07/08 12:10:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Johnnyb has our number:
If one decides to argue against ID by saying that all of the arguments boil down to “it looks designed therefore it must be designed”, one must then argue against _any_ scientific inference or deduction. You could just as well argue that a “temperature inference” from a thermometer is invalid because “it looks hot therefore it must be hot”.

Maybe not, though, because when I read a thermometer I read the scale.  I don't look to see if it "looks hot".  Johnnyb needs a remedial thermometer reading class, perhaps? :)

Date: 2006/07/09 03:45:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, it looks like a few physicists are out of a job, now.  Thanks for wrapping things up, Gil!
Cosmological fine-tuning for the existence of life is so well established that it is essentially beyond question at this point, unless one is willing to put blind faith in wildly-fantastic speculation about an infinitude of in-principle undetectable alternative universes. A huge amount of complex, specified information was clearly infused into the origin-of-the-universe process.

Date: 2006/07/10 07:39:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sal's YEC post, quoted above, is simply breathtaking in its ignorance...

Date: 2006/07/11 06:20:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
From the wired article:
An engineer by training, Ken Sandhage had no idea what diatoms were...

Yet engineers, taken as a group, are more qualified to do biology than biologists.

(I know Ken Sandhage isn't saying that, but it does seem like a great example of the depth of knowledge of biology held by most engineers)

Date: 2006/07/13 15:32:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
I think it's time for Dave Scott to stick up for Kent Hovind again, like he did when Kent got in trouble over his building permits.

You know, Kent's only being harassed because he's a Christian, etc etc.

C'mon Dave, we know you read this thread when you're not too busy violating the 2nd Law by posting at UD ...

Date: 2006/07/14 15:49:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dembski asks:
Is this an ID paper?

Apparently since Medusa, their molecular modeling and design toolkit, generates results consistent with what we observe in nature, supporting their hypothesis, this implies that nature is designed.

Because Medusa, the modeling toolkit, being a computer program written by humans, was of course designed.

I think it's safe to assume that every significant result generated by computational biologists will be trumpeted by the IDers as being "more proof of design".

How silly.  We model biochemistry, therefore the things we observe in nature were designed.

Date: 2006/07/18 08:53:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Since we're seeing the end of the DaveScot era at UD, do you think there's support for a retrospective of "The Best of DaveTard"? Maybe now that it's all over and 'the corpus is closed', as it were, we should collect the top fifty Greatest Boneheaded Moments from Dave's tenure at UD?

For pure boneheadedness it's hard to beat his belief (which he still holds) that he violates SLOT everytime he posts ...

Date: 2006/07/18 10:56:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Improvious is right, IMO
Though the humor factor of violating SLoT with someone's mother is priceless.

Violating DaveTard's SLuT of a mother violates SLoT???

Date: 2006/07/20 12:30:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Took me about 45 minutes, but I finally got it.

Care to tell us which page the clues are on?

Date: 2006/07/21 07:42:34, Link
Author: dhogaza
BarryA's at the quote-mine game again.
Let me get this straight. Stephen Jay Gould wrote, “All paleontologists know that the fossil record contains precious little in the way of intermediate forms; transitions between major groups are characteristically abrupt,” in the article cited above.

Is it your position that when he wrote this Gould meant something OTHER THAN that paleontologists know the fossil record contains little in the way of intermediate forms and that transitions between major groups are abrupt? Do you further believe that, in context, Gould’s real position that is in stark contrast to the quoted language will be revealed?

To which I responded that the five words written by Gould that follow the quote are:
Although I reject this argument ...

Which, of course, reveals that in context Gould's real position is, indeed, in stark contrast to the quoted language.

Needless to say, my comment has not been approved and is invisible.

When accused of quote-mining by another poster, he dishonestly says
(another poster) writes, “You are trying to portray those evolutionists as not believing that the fossil record provides sound proof for evolution.”

Absolutely untrue. Look at my comment again. You will see that I offered the quotations with absolutely no commentary of any kind or nature whatsoever. I am not trying to “portray” anything other than what the evolutionists said. I let them speak for themselves. You can believe the evolutionists believe something other than what they wrote or that they believe something about topics on which they were not writing, but that has nothing to do with what I wrote.

Lawyers lyin' lovingly for the lord.  Gotta love it.

Date: 2006/07/21 08:41:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
From moderator Denyse: That sounds remarkable to me, given that only some of the comments have the vowels removed. Not likely happening at this end. But I will make an enquiry.

And this woman's going to help Dumbski topple all of modern biology?

Date: 2006/07/21 14:18:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Someone might want to tackle Sal here
in his comment #3.

I have, but my posts are still not showing up there.

The authors describe the fact:

   this very robustness also renders redundancy evolutionarily unstable, and it is, thus, predicted to have only a transient lifetime.

Absolutely, which really shows the theory (Darwinian evolution) was wrong in the first place to make the prediction!

Sal's full of it, of course.  Evolutionary theory wasn't wrong to make this prediction, rather the fact that observations didn't jive with theory is the motivation for the research.

Because, obviously, there's more going on than that "ONE consequence" (robustness) they mention, that's counterbalancing expectations.   (You'll see what I mean if you read the abstract Dumbski posted)

Theory, in this case, led the researchers to look for more data.

Which contrasts with Sal's claim that a prediction of evolutionary theory based on incomplete data somehow disproves the theory.


Date: 2006/07/21 15:22:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sal actually gets it totally wrong. The paper is based on how evolution predicted that a mere duplication, with no other fuction, wouldn't hang around, but this thing did, so according to evolution there's another function, and they looked for it, and found it.

Yes, that's what I was trying to say, perhaps I wasn't very clear.  It's  hot here today :)

Date: 2006/07/22 03:36:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
Posted by someone in response to Dumbski's post of an abstract which he claims supports ID because it includes the word DESIGN in it:

I am eagerly awaiting further peer-reviewed research from Dr. Dembski and his research assistant on this topic. If this falls sufficiently outside their area of Intelligent Design expertise, I assume that there are other robust ID research programs that will carry this forward. Can someone kindly provide links to the labs and researchers that have the capacity to carry this out?

This fact that this made it past the moderators proves that the EF can't detect satire ...

Date: 2006/07/22 05:46:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Denyse doesn't even understand fitness

I predict good times will be had by all now that Den[y]se has equal standing with Dumbski at UD.

Date: 2006/07/22 19:02:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
Just as Monty Python’s Black Knight was whittled from a full human to a stump, so evolutionary theory is finally being whittled to its proper size.

This man is giving up any pretension of wanting to be taken seriously by intellectuals.

Really, I'm starting to have the same vibes I get from Larry FarFromSaneMan: straightjacket time.

I guess Dumbski's not going there because foaming at the mouth about the end of science is about as harmless as those who march in public places saying "the end is near - next week!" week after week after week.

It's almost sad to see this.

Date: 2006/07/31 07:02:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
Wow, dave's spamming John's blog.  Probably has set up a little 'bot to do it automatically.

Maybe someone should report DaveTard to Homeland Security. :)

Date: 2006/08/07 11:41:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
The Coral Ridge Hour is onto something.  Who can disagree with this?

Feature: Consequences of Darwinism
This week on The Coral Ridge Hour we will look at some of the horrific consequences of Darwinian evolution. It is a report you will not soon forget.

After all, if it weren't for evolution, we wouldn't be here causing all these damned horrific consequences like global warming, rainforest destruction, war, pestilence, lying for Jesus, etc.

That's probably not the line of argument promoted by the radio show, however ... :)

Date: 2006/08/08 11:17:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
He'll (Dembski) be turning water into wine if he ever sees an eclipse...

No, he'll be turning wine into urine and calling it proof of God's existence.

Date: 2006/08/09 10:44:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Someone named "EJ Klone" will have a short career at UD:
The video was cute and entertaining, but don’t you think it misrepresents ID? Using such terms as “He” and “Lord” doesn’t that presume not only a supernatural deity, but a male one and a christian one, and need I say, just ONE? That’s not the intelligent design I’m familiar with.

Yeah, I bet that's not the ID you're familiar with, you troll, you!

Date: 2006/08/11 11:56:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
Apparently Dembski's trying to out-dumb O'Looney ... these aren't his words but he's posting them at UD, presumably because he agrees...
(if humans are nothing but atoms and molecules)...

I PREDICT that scientists will one day construct a device capable of transporting a human body across vast regions of space–a device comparable to the “teleporter” as portrayed in the “Star Trek” TV series. It will disassemble a living human body at a molecular or sub-molecular level, transport those small bits of living organic material at high speed across great distance, and reassemble them to their original macroscopic configuration, with no ill effects to the body it has transported.

IF, HOWEVER, after several hundred years of scientific advance no such a device will have been formulated, this fact should be taken as an indication that naturalistic materialism is not true.

Date: 2006/08/12 10:59:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
BarryA still can't get over the fact that they lost in Dover

Anyone here think BarryA will ever get offered a seat in the federal judiciary?  Not friggin' likely, is my read.

Date: 2006/08/13 07:42:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Also I can't help noticing that Davescot's sig links, not to his own blog, but to UD itself- as ridiculous as that may be. Is it a form of declaration of his allegiance? A subtle request for restoration of his privileges? Or just plain ol' grovel?

Well, as much as I hate to cut DaveTard some slack, the reality is that he was never banned, just lost moderator privileges.

Which means he's logged in using his old username, and password, with his old profile which quite reasonably was linked to UD when he was a moderator of the site.

He probably hasn't even thought about where his handle points to....

Don't worry, he's making a big enough fool of himself by commenting on Andrea's posts.

Date: 2006/08/17 04:55:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
Now Sal's quote-mining the student papers in MacNeill's class at Cornell.

(see comment 5)

The man has no shame whatsoever, no sense of decency, honesty, or right from wrong.

Date: 2006/08/17 08:57:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
I wouldn't worry too much dhogaza...

Oh, I'm not worried.  I just feel that misrepresenting students via quote-mining as Sal's done is particularly low.

Date: 2006/08/17 14:46:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
An ironic comment by Dembski:
Evolution’s New Central Dogma: If we can morph two virtual things in a computer simulation, then the real things corresponding to them could, by natural selection, evolve into one another.

While he dismisses computer simulation offhandedly, he and his cohorts are down with the notion that if I design an airplane by computer, that proves that birds and bees were designed ...

Date: 2006/08/19 11:08:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
And in the same thread ...
If Darwinism really was the lynch-pin of science that it is claimed to be then the book in question would be redundant because it would only be questioned and regarded as irrelevant by the same sort of person who insists that heliocentrism is wrong or those who insist that the world is flat.

Well, yeah, there's truth in that claim.  What kind of people DO question evolutionary biology, eh?

Date: 2006/08/24 05:30:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
Since the 1990s, C++ has been one of the most popular commercial programming languages.

the others aren't really mainstream.

C and Fortran aren't mainstream?

The compiler company I started many years ago to market  my compiler technology was selling a C++ compiler commerically by the late 1980s, and Cfront (Strastroup's C++->C translator) was available before that.  It did take awhile for it to become popular.  Personally, if it were up to me, I'd shoot it.  C++ has grown irrationally and sucks.

And I wrote a hearts program when I was a teen that, um, I wouldn't dignify with the term "AI".  I have no idea why DaveTard thinks his trivial cribbage program is an "AI".   Oh, yeah, a distant descendant of my hearts program is still available for downloading on the internet.  Big whoop-de-do, huh?  The trivial shit Dave brags about says a lot about him.

Date: 2006/08/24 14:38:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
Of course, I wrote all my stuff for data collection and analysis for my thesis in the Delphi variant of Pascal.

Heh.  I wrote the world's first commercial Pascal compiler (for the PDP-11, in 1975), and that was the basis for my compiler technology company.  That later became DEC's PDP-11 Pascal compiler, too.  We gave up and wrote C and C++ front-ends in the late 1980s (after pushing Modula-2, as well).  Supported pretty much every architecture out there for all four languages.

That's totally off-topic.  It just warms my heart to run across a fellow fan of Pascal.  Klaus Wirth just retired a couple years ago ...

More on-topic, Pim and others (including me) pointed out that Salvador was not held to the rules by Hannah to the same degree that Allen held those on the other side (remember Hannah moderated the IDers, Allen "us").

The rules included a requirement that, if challenged, one show credible source material for claims made on the blog, and other rules designed to make it difficult for posters to outright lie.

I don't need to tell people here how, if Sal had been required to actually to back up his lies, he'd be left with nothing.  Several please were made, they were ignored.

On the other hand, when engaged on the mathematical arguments for CSI made by Dembski, Sal actually tried to play (not as effectively as Hannah) and was forced to admit being wrong on minor points more than once.

However, in classic Sal fashion he'd then go on to totally quote-mine others on the blog, pretend the past refutation of his claims had not been made, repeat his arguments, blah blah blah without any effort on Hannah's part to make him play nice.

At one point, before the rules were tightened up, I recommended to Allen that the blog be restricted to students in the seminar, since Sal was attempting to dominate it with absolutely no effort to be honest (but politely, remember, politely!;)  It was pointed out that almost nothing would be posted in that case so it was kept open (the students were kept busy with the required reading, class discussion, and the paper due at the end of the course).

Overall, though, I think the blog discussions were better than many here and at PT fear.  The real problem is that Sal was posting threads over at UD proclaiming victory over this-or-that snippet after having had his ass handed to him on Allen's blog.  And you know the UD synchophants can't be bothered to follow the original discussion, nor most likely lurkers there.  The Design Paradigm (the Cornell IDEA club blog run by Hannah) will be discussing the course soon and I suspect her line's going to be similar ...

I do wonder if Hannah's faith in Sal has been shaken, even though her faith in ID hasn't.  Sal played most of his normal tricks as much as possible ...

I was raised by a relatively fundie mom, and I've kept many of the values I was raised with.  Primary among them is that dishonestly and lying rank very, very high among sins, far higher than mere "rudeness".  That was my beef with the rules at Allen's blog.  Lying  was acceptable, pointing out that someone was lying was not.

Date: 2006/08/28 07:12:33, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ah, davescot rides into battle again:
The chance worshippers know they are doomed if chance evolution can be questioned in public school.

And if chemistry can be questioned in public school, alchemy will replace it in the world of science.  I love Dave's logic...

Date: 2006/08/28 09:38:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Joy!  DaveTard and JAD are arguing on whether or not we're in the midst of a mass extinction event.

To add to the fun, while Davison argues that we are, indeed, in the midst of such an event, it's mostly preprogrammed extinction ...

Date: 2006/09/01 08:38:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
PaV starts a new thread ...
the more I read and keep up with experimental evidence, the more I question the existence of Natural Selection.

These boys don't get out in the real world much, do they?
Here's the thread...

Date: 2006/09/02 11:46:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
Following Arden's link led me to quotes from this site.

Here's a sample statement from a thread debating Young Earth vs. Old Earth:
Please explain how if all planets originated from a big bang, why several of them and their moons seem to be flipped upside down on their axis, or at odd angles in their spin. Shouldn't they all be spinning the same direction?


Date: 2006/09/02 18:13:26, Link
Author: dhogaza
Then comes plate tectonics

I particularly love that.  Hopefully stated by someone who lives on the San Andreas fault.   Right on top :)

Date: 2006/09/09 14:24:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
Our favorite fundy lawyer, BarryA, is at it again at UD ...

The purpose of physical blinders leads easily to the metaphor of intellectual blinders.  A person is said to be “wearing blinders” if he is incapable of understanding another person’s point of view.

He then goes on to explain why biologists are blind to the evidence which supports ID. He goes on to quote-mine helter-skelter from a buncha people, including the old creationist favorite, Stephen Jay Gould.

Oddly, he never suggests that creationists like himself might be blind to the evidence supporting evolution due to their belief in the literal truth of the Bible ...

Date: 2006/09/14 11:12:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yet another nail in the Darwinian coffin. The problems with the theory are mounting almost daily and becoming more and more severe in more and more areas. The trend is clear. The only thing propping it up is increasingly desperate and fantastic speculation — the sign of a paradigm in crisis and on the verge of meltdown.

Methinks there's a reason Gil Dodgen wrote a checkers program rather than one for, say, Go ...

Date: 2006/09/18 12:06:04, Link
Author: dhogaza

Buffalo Bills Buffalo Bills Buffalo Bills Buffalo Bills

Buffalo Bills Blow But Miami's Much More Mediocre ...

Date: 2006/09/21 06:10:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, Dave's missing something even more basic regarding copyright law:
All comments become the intellectual property of Uncommon Descent and may not be reproduced elsewhere without express written permission except as provided by fair use laws.

You can't assign rights to something that doesn't (legally) exist.  A registered domain name is not, in an of itself, a legal entity.  Even if Uncommon Descent's been incorporated (which I doubt), DaveTard's statement needs to reference the corporation, not the blog.

The whole RSS/copyright thing probably hasn't been tested in court, as it takes a dickbrain like DaveTard to claim that you can't read their RSS feed.  Wes can claim he's just collecting information that UD has chosen to publish, and making it available for others to read.  Just as libraries do with stuff printed on real paper.

Of course now that they've killed the feed they could choose to resurrect it on a subscription basis or the like.

Apparently this is Talk Like A Lawyer (Wannabee) Day:
Wesley, I know this will reach you. You are hereby explicitely put on notice that BUUD is illegally republishing our content which is protected by implicit copyright already and your actions have caused substantial real damages to, its owners, and content contributors.

UD has suffered real (i.e.) financial damage, eh?

And, of course, DaveTard violated SLOT when he wrote that sentence, too ...

Date: 2006/09/21 11:07:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
He still hasn't figured out that a non-entity can't hold a copyright.

Also, ironically, a fair number of forums/blogs/bboards etc explicitly state that they do NOT own comments made on the site, and that the views and opinions made in comments are not necessarily those of the site owner.

They do this to avoid lawsuits over disagreeable content.

DaveTard's doing just the opposite ...

Date: 2006/09/21 11:49:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sez DaveTard:
What it means to lose Google search hits. We dropped off Google’s radar on the 16th. It looks to be roughly 20% dropoff in traffic.

Well, that's to be expected if 20% of your site traffic comes from GoogleBot :)

(and since it indexes archives that may not be as far off the mark as one might think)

Date: 2006/09/27 10:34:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
I'm enjoying Carl Sachs' sarcastic posts a lot.  I'm enjoying the fact that a couple of the UD regulars don't understand they're being made fun of even more ...

Date: 2006/10/01 14:55:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
Don't let the excitement over OE lead you to neglect UD.   In  this thread JasontheGreek sez

I’d bet that a lot of people here and others in ID, in general, would disagree that avida shows what you claim. Even if it did show this in a computer simulation, again- it’s not the real world. On top of that- I’d say a lot of honest IDers would disagree with you and do so honestly. It doesn’t make a person dishonest to discount avida as a fantasy.

OK, Jason, you're not dishonest.  You're just dumb.

The thread's fun.  Tom English, Karl Pfluger and others trash self-proclaimed CS experts DaveTard and Gil Dodgen thoroughly.

Date: 2006/10/02 14:47:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
BC sez something reasonable:

However, there are no preset targets or “directions” guiding natural selection

Then, in one of those out-of-the-mouths-of-tards moments, our favorite ex-marine, packager of components into laptop-sized boxes, and repeat offender of the Second Law sez:

Of course there is a target. Does the term “differential reproduction” ring any bells?

Differential reproduction is the TARGET of natural selection?

Oh  my.

Date: 2006/10/03 07:43:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Followed immediately by someone making the point that the "T" in "MOSFET" stands for "transistor", along with a couple other takedowns of Dave.

Tom English, R.I.P.  May we all drink to his memory.

Date: 2006/10/03 09:29:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
Tom English lives here.

Date: 2006/10/04 12:53:27, Link
Author: dhogaza

bona fide science?

Dembski is a groundbreaking theoretician?

Read more closely.  Heddle is saying his point is true regardless of where ID lies on the spectrum.

He's not saying where he himself believes ID lies on that spectrum in that sentence.  In fact he's quite clear in saying that ID as preached by Dembski et al isn't even close to being science.

Date: 2006/10/05 11:37:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is killing a child an instance of child abuse?

Not when the child is an adult.  Jesus wasn't a child when he died on the cross.

But onwards to more fruitful things.

DaveTard expresses an arrogance unmatched by any real engineers I've ever met:
Scientist says: Science is the discovery of how things in the natural world work. Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery.

Engineer says: Engineering is the practical application of scientific discovery. Scientific discovery is simply reverse engineering.So you see, it’s really all engineering.

So you see, it’s really all engineering.  You either take something that already exists and reverse engineer it (that’s science) or you take the knowledge gained from reverse engineering and create something that doesn’t already exist with it.

I say: no comment.  None needed.  Quotes like this stand on their own.

Date: 2006/10/09 04:09:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
DaveTard goes after climatology ...
I post this because so-called global warming is blamed on human activities by the worst kind of consensus pseudoscience

About what I'd expect from someone with an IQ of 0.150.

Date: 2006/10/10 13:16:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
The Bend Bulletin has a fine track record in its coverage of science.

For instance, in the late 1980s they gained some notoriety by publishing an editorial stating that the dependence of northern spotted owl on old-growth forests was bunk, "because as everyone knows, they're found nesting everywhere, even auto junkyards".

I kid you not.

Date: 2006/10/11 07:10:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, I have to admit I didn't shed any tears upon hearing of Helen Chenoweth's death a week or so ago.  Nor did any of my other friends involved in conservation here in Oregon, where wild salmon once were plentiful.

I found it a bit ironic that she was killed when she was thrown from the SUV she was riding in (her daughter-in-law rolled it).  She wasn't wearing her seatbelt (which must, by law, be worn in Nevada).  Somehow it all seems to fit together.

Regarding DaveTard:

Only computer models predict that effect. Actual average global temperature measured in the troposphere, which is more reliable than surface measurements which are confounded by man-made “heat islands”, has been decreasing since 1978. The computer models used since that time are very, very wrong.

Each sentence is factually incorrect.  Amazing.  Even someone with a self-measured IQ of 0.150 ought to be able to find this out by spending about 30 seconds in Google.

Date: 2006/10/11 15:06:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
Let me emphasize that no one—including adults—should have a blog or personal website (unless it is for legitimate business purposes).  

Oddly, the author says this in their own ... BLOG!

Date: 2006/10/12 06:15:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
The problem with saying that CO2 can be limiting to plant growth is when he notes that it is only limiting IF NO OTHER ELEMENT IS LIMITED, which by and large, is not the case for 99.99% of plant growth in the world.  In most cases it is either nitrogen (soil nitrates) or phosphorous that is the limiting agent, sometimes trace minerals, and often water (but that's relative, of course).

You mean ... farmers fertilize their crops for a reason?  Who wouldda thunk it!

Date: 2006/10/15 14:44:00, Link
Author: dhogaza

Well, at least his handle, "Zero", is the most honest one to be found at UD ...

Even DaveTard has an IQ of 0.150 ...

Date: 2006/10/15 17:37:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Freelurker, do you have any insight into why many IDers are engineers?

I think much of it just has to do with numbers, especially in a day and age when someone like DaveTard can call himself an "engineer", despite having no degree.  The computer industry's huge.  Academic biologists are far outnumbered by people who spend their lives building laptops out of standard components mostly built in Aloha, Oregon and Taiwan.

Many of the so-called engineers at UD appear to be low-level computer programmers, with little formal education.  I think part of the problem here may just be the depreciation of the term "engineer" in industry ...

Date: 2006/10/16 07:11:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
If they really are such avid Christians, they would do well to read Søren Kierkegaard instead of William Dembski.

They'd do better starting with the Jesus Bits in the New Testament, you know, the parts where Jesus Christ condemns the kind of behavior exhibited by Bill Dembski.

What would Jesus do?  He'd get himself banned at UD by Dembski, that's what...

Date: 2006/10/18 06:51:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Allen rocks.  No doubt about it:
It’s very gratifying to know there’s such interest in the evolving field of evolutionary biology, even at website that is moderated by someone who believes that it is morally detestible and the source of most of the moral failings of modern society

Date: 2006/10/18 08:38:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Allen's comment is in this thread.

Date: 2006/10/25 06:08:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Not that we need any further proof that Sal's a wingnut but ...
I was an OEC, but I would not be too quick to give the geology of Charles Lyell (Darwin’s inspiration) a free-pass.

The strata do not agree with being laid down over long periods of time. A few centimeters of erosion every 1000 years would wipe out the continents in 100 million years. Even if the Earth is old, the current interpretation of geology just based on this is scientifically unsustainable.

So with a wave of his hands he disproves our scientific understanding of geologic processes, just as he earlier disposed of evolutionary biology.

Date: 2006/10/28 05:39:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
And to suggest that it was a dirty secret that, punctuated equilibrium notwithstanding, Gould remained fundamentally Darwinian is beyond absurd.  Maybe even beyond beyond absurd.  

You'd think even Dembski would know that Gould's Natural History column, "This view of life", got its name from the famous quote from Darwin, "There is a grandeur in this view of life".

Makes one wonder if Dembski knows *anything* about modern evolutionary thinking (or Darwin's work, for that matter).

Date: 2006/11/21 18:49:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is Dave really in favor of a less-than-fully-"masculine" JHC, or not?

Well, sheesh, he DID have long hair to go along with that fair skin and blue eyes ...

Apparently their position is that Jesus wasn't really the Son of God, but rather an abomination ...

Date: 2006/12/22 21:04:01, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is WAD here expressing his love for his enemies? Advocating the administration of strong medicine as an expression of that love?  No; he rather obviously identifies with Elijah, and envies Elijah's barbaric Old Testament fantasy-solution to the problem of stubborn unbelief.

This is classic US fundie stuff, though, Dembski's not alone.  They really believe more strongly in the Old Testament blood-and-guts stories than in Jesus's message of love and tolerance.

Date: 2006/12/25 09:35:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Hmmm, TroutMac uses a Mac and regarding the "trout" portion of his handle, we can safely assume he's a fly fisherman, I think.  The Deschutes River, which runs through his home town of Bend, Oregon, offers excellent fishing.  And further downstream, nice whitewater (thus the name).

Such a normal Oregon-type person in so many ways.  How can he be so stupid about science?

Date: 2007/01/07 21:07:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
StephenA sez ...
Personally I think God does like to do things that seem a bit bizzare every so often. For example, I have no doubt that he was breastfed at one stage.

Thank God God was not bottlefed ...

Date: 2007/01/09 15:33:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
Contract work in extremely hot technologies will sometimes get as high as $80-100 per hour, but those things are very unusual. I think I saw ads for Java Beans programmers in that range once, a few years back.

That's too low, actually ... speaking from personal experience, including what I'm billing out at the moment for a project for a large national non-profit.

During the dot-com boom I knew people billing out at in $350/hr range.  Silly me, I was taking a few years off.

$1,000 on a sustained basis?  Not that I know of.

Date: 2007/01/16 13:46:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
anybody have a clue what a "dufusness" is?

A "doofus" is someone who's clumsy, inept, stupid etc.

Think those parts of Texas that aren't in Austin ...

Date: 2007/02/11 16:52:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dave's still gotta prove his ignorance is unlimited ...

The amount of warming predicted by theoretical modeling of CO2 in the atmosphere is several times more than what has actually been measured.

Uh, no Dave, this simply isn't true.  Not even close to true.

Date: 2007/02/11 18:27:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
Heh, it gets better.   Now Dave's quoting old conclusions based on satellite and radiosonde data that's been shown to be incorrect in the years since.

Apparently he's unaware that Christy, the source of the "troposphere is actually cooling" satellite analysis, has acknowledged the calculation errors he and his team made (including one sign error on an important term in one equation).  And that when corrected, the data actually correlates quite nicely with the ground temperature data.  A point Christy agreed with when he was part of the NAS expert panel put together at the request of the Bush administration not long after Bush took office.

Tch tch Dave.

Date: 2007/02/11 18:54:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, the most recent cite there is 1996 ... 11 years ago (and I believe that's just a letter to Nature).

Of course, our knowledge of climatology hasn't as grown a bit since then :)

Date: 2007/02/11 23:29:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
Gildodgen says ...
Darwin Day 2007 has special significance for me, because on that day my wife and I will celebrate our 30th wedding anniversary. A woman who put up with me for 30 years surely deserves sainthood.

And ... and ... she doesn't even know why.

Or worse, she does, and stays with him anyway...

Date: 2007/02/12 17:36:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, Denyse has had another "ID is all about the science" moment ...
And so much is at stake. If there is any evidence of intelligent design in the universe, not only is materialist atheism wrong, but whole rows of pasty-faced profs spluttering the formulas for selling out to materialism on behalf of dying institutional churchianity to increasingly empty pews are now … obviated.

So the "designer" is supernatural after all ... gosh.

Actually, her post, taken literally, apparently implies that my intelligently-designed laptop proves the existence of god ... hmmm ... interesting.

Date: 2007/02/12 18:19:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
What do you expect from people that think evolution hasn't progressed since Darwin?

Ummm ... let me think ... arguments against evolution that haven't progressed since Paley's watchmaker?

Date: 2007/02/12 19:36:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
The money quote from Teleologist:

The Darwinists might argue that B&C are not as probable as A, but when does a Darwinist worry about probabilities.

Well, um, often, unlike folks like Dembski, who don't worry about probabilities, but rather lie about them ...

Date: 2007/02/13 13:09:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
DaviePooh steps in it again...
I’m afraid that doesn’t justify blaming manmade CO2. Humans have been pumping C02 into the atmosphere for a lot longer than the last 10 years. Plus the stratosphere has been cooling big time since 1997

Yes, the stratosphere has been cooling.  As climate models predict happens when more heat is trapped in the troposphere.  Less is transferred to the stratosphere, which leads to cooling ...

Poor DaviePooh.

Date: 2007/02/14 16:12:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
DaveScot is a very sick man ...
Islam is a disease and people like me are the cure. Asking me to approach it with humility is like asking me to approach cancer with humility. Not a chance.

And of course he's blind to the fact that he's as intolerant and hate-filled as bin Laden himself.

Date: 2007/02/14 18:13:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Marines ... aren’t always playing with a full deck, if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Well, sure, Dave, you demonstrate the point every time you post...

Date: 2007/02/14 20:17:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
...tho that article also says "As most of the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets lie above the snowline and/or base of the permafrost zone, they cannot melt in a timeframe much less than several millennia". Tho I suppose it's still an open question whether a significant *part* of them could melt.

Also, melting while on land is not the only mechanism proposed for the disappearance of Greenland's glaciers.  Glaciers there are lubricated by water that flows through cracks down to the rock below, which speeds the rate at which they flow to the sea and calve icebergs, which then melt relatively quickly.  At least one recent paper proposes that warming is leading to a measurable increase in the flow rate of Greenland's glaciers, due to increased lubrication.

So the possibility of Greenland's ice sheet disappearing in century-timescales rather than millennia might be a possibility if they're right.

In Antartica a lot of the ice is just sitting there in the interior desert  , not flowing to the sea, at least that's my understanding.

Date: 2007/02/14 23:30:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
WAD blows his religion wad again...

(hey WAD == wad, not bad!)

A new journal is coming out that wouldn’t be necessary if we weren’t so much trouble: Outreach and Education in Evolution, published by Springer Verlag. As a seminary professor (among other things), I usually associate the word “outreach” with proselytizing and missionary zeal. For people who aren’t religious, those Darwinists sure have learned a lot from religion.

But, hey, WAD, it's not about religion, is it, just science.  Hmm, well, apparently you forgot that.  Equating the opposition with religion isn't exactly the best way to convince people that religion isn't the foundation of your problem with science, dude!

Date: 2007/02/15 12:27:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
tribune7 accidently says something ironic in the islam intolerance thread:
OK, let’s take Islam out of it. Is it wrong to lie?

(earlier he claimed that Muslims feel free to lie to Christians.)

Well ... yes, it's wrong to lie.  Please pass along the message that Lying For Jesus is WRONG to DaveTard, Dembski, Behe, Salvador (especially!) , tribune7 ...

Date: 2007/02/16 07:16:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh Dave strikes with a tardelicious misreading of a hypothesis which potentially explains why Antartica hasn't warmed as much as expected:
I just love being eventually proven right but vindication usually doesn’t come to me this quickly. As I was trying to tell Mike Dunford, including my now prophetic-appearing conjecture that manmade CFC-caused ozone depletion is a real global warming culprit, unlike the mythical C02 effect…

So, Dave has boldy predicted that it is ozone depletion, not increased CO2, that is causing global warming.  In support of this he cites a paper that states:

“In some sense, we might have competing effects going on in Antarctica where there is low-level CO2 warming but that may be swamped by the effects of ozone depletion.”

In other words, ozone depletion in the stratosphere over the Antartic has a regional cooling effect that might be swamping the warming contribution of increased CO2.

Apparently in Dave's world cooling affirms his prediction of warming.


He also seems to have missed the fact that this hypothesis is viewed favorably by many (most?) of the mainstream climate science community.  I first read about it on Real Climate, IIRC.

Date: 2007/02/16 12:45:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, this is too funny.  Now Dave claims that the paper he cites in support of his premise that CFCs cause global warming helps his cause because ...

the paper is wrong!

The author actually misses the mark on the effect of ozone depletion.

Date: 2007/02/17 00:35:49, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oops, this chick Jennifer thinks these xtians should act like xtians:
I think Jesus would encourage us to care for the earth and to ensure that the less fortunate will not needlessly suffer. That is not what you are promoting by denying global warming is real.

Apparently she's not clued into the "Lying For Jesus [even if it means people die as a result as long as I can delude myself into thinking it helps me get into heaven]" paradigm...

Date: 2007/02/18 17:42:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh ... cool YEC fight between Salvador and some guy named Douglas in the Dembski v. Shermer thread on UD:

Douglas says:

Oh, and I think you (Salvador) should feel far more embarassed being associated with organizations which seemingly crave money, like Dr. Kennedy’s ministry, than with individuals who have ACTUALLY HEARD DIRECTLY FROM GOD, AND CAN DISCERN WHICH OF THE THREE PERSONS OF THE TRINITY IS SPEAKING, like myself.

Hey, Douglas, God didn't happen to tell you who the designer is, did he?

Date: 2007/02/18 19:04:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
I’m reading through the report on satellite data accuracy by Christy right now at

to see exactly how much error NASA is admitting to due to orbit calculation mistakes. I find it difficult to believe the errors are large enough to be a significant factor given NASA’s long experience in orbital mechanics.

Dave is obviously unaware of the THREE separate significant computation errors in Christy's early work, errors that he acknowledges.  One of those errors was a sign error on a term, rather embarrassing for the work that "drove a wooden stake into the global warming myth" (as the WSJ famously said in an editorial at the time Christy's work was first embraced by denialists).

One accidentally-beneficial side-effect of Bush's call for "more research before we decide" early in his first term was that funding was provided for a shoot-out between Christy et al and those exposing the errors in his work.  Turns out the modelers (who stuck to their guns and said Christy's work was bullshit throughout the controversy) were right, and the "best dataset available" was wrong ... one suspects the Bush administration had hoped for the opposite result.

Date: 2007/02/18 23:36:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
This giddy, off-topic conversation Dave is having with himself is starting to read like a manic episode, complete with racing thoughts, flights of ideas, and self-congratulatory grandiosity

I thought about posting a comment similar to this earlier, but thought of the two bi-polar people I know and thought "no, it's almost trivializing to make such a comparison"

But ... seeing your post ... yes, this behavior is very typical of a manic episode.  At least those of the two people I know who are bi-polar.  We don't know much more about Dave, other than his compulsive eating of cheesypoofs (compulsive behavior also being symptomatic of mania) but ... so far, the data fits.

Date: 2007/02/24 09:07:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
Joseph says something a bit racist ...
And if Mozart is evidence for ID does that mean that Mike Tyson is evidence for NDE?

Date: 2007/03/01 23:50:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, Billy Dembski, in his attempts to set the record straight regarding the Templeton Foundation, says ...
It might interest readers of this blog to know that Charles Harper and I had explored a much bigger follow-up conference to the 1999 conference in Santa Fe. What follows is a conference proposal that I sent to Harper in 1999. At the time, he was interested in making this conference happen. I would still be interested in doing a conference like this and would welcome Templeton’s involvement.

Yeah, the fact that YOU would be interested ain't the point.

The Templeton Foundation has made it clear that THEY aren't interested, and since they're the money source, just who's opinion counts?

TF: Dembski's a fraud.

BD: Well, they think I'm a fraud, but I'd still like to take their money and do a conference.  For profit in the name of Jeebus.

Date: 2007/03/14 20:15:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
There was also an issue with one of the scientists interviewed in the Swindle claiming to be taken out of context. Actually, from what I remember in the film, all the people interviewed seemed to speak at length enough to where any context was pretty obvious. I could be mistaken about this one guy.

He was describing how warming of the sea as an ice age begins to end releases CO2 to the atmosphere.  That additional CO2 then leads to further warming (this info was not in the snippet C4 used).  The driving force behind the beginning and ending of ice ages is minor oscillations in the earths orbits, cycles with periods of tens of thousands of years.

Today's situation doesn't fit that scenario.  CO2 is not in (rough) equilibrium, we're pumping large amounts of it that has been sequestered in oil, coal and natural gas for millions of years.  Sea warming lags atmospheric warming and the sea is, at the moment, still a CO2 *SINK*.

As the scientist knows full well and says he pointed out in his interview (which lasted hours).

The producers QUOTE-MINED the man, snipping out his discussion about the processes which have occurred in past ice ages to make it appear as though he is saying that oceans today are a major source of CO2 (as opposed to mankind's activities).

I was surprised at some of the names and positions of the people that were global warming skeptics. I mean, the co-founder of Greenpeace?

Patrick Moore, co-founder of Greenpeace, has never been an environmentalist.  Greenpeace began as an anti-nuclear weapon proliferation organization, protesting french tests in the pacific IIRC.

When the organization began addressing environmental issues, Patrick Moore left.

And has been making his anti-environmental feelings clear now for sheesh, 20? 30? years.  They're not simply directed against the AGW hypothesis.

I wish someone would also address the 800 year lag between the rise of CO2 and the rise in temperature from ice core data. I don't think I've heard an adequate explanation of the mechanism behind that.

Well, I just provided a very thumbnail sketch above.  To add to the point, it only lags the first 1/6th of the warming periods seen in the ice-core data.  Orbital cycles trigger ice ages and our emergence from them, this warming adds CO2 to the atmosphere as described above and over time CO2 then adds to the last 5/6 of the warming period.

As for the rest, geez.

You folks here see stupid arguments by IDers and know that they lie, quote-mine, misrepresent science, etc.  It's the tool of their trade.

Why would you fall for some argument like "oh, the 800 year lag in  CO2 vs. warming proves AGW to be false" when it's derived from climate science (a broad field including physicists, paleoclimatologists, chemists, modelers, etc) in the first place?  Doesn't occur to you that they think about stuff like this, that thousands of climate scientists do this for their living just like evolutionary biologists do science for a living????

Turn on your bullsh*t filter!!!

Doesn't it occur to you to be as suspicious of claims by fringe denialists just as you are with the IDers?

For expert fisking of C4's documentary (which trots out the same old shit denialists depend upon just as IDers trot out the same old shit creationists have depended on since Paley) visit Real Climate which is run by some of the leading climatologists in the world (Michael Mann, for instance, is a regular contributor).

Meanwhile I'm sighing ... if people here are taken in by C4's tripe, no wonder so many people are taken in by ID tripe!

Date: 2007/03/14 21:21:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Global warming from CO2 is a feedback process.

Correct for the past ice ages where we see a significant lag in CO2 concentrations vs. temperature rise.

However things are a bit different now than then.  In the preindustrial era , CO2 in the atmosphere increased when natural events kicked things out of equilibrium, for instance warming due to wobbles in the earth's orbit, leading to more CO2 being released by warmer oceans than they absorb until things again reach equilibrium.

Humans have learned a new way to kick things out of equilibrium: significantly increase the CO2 in the atmosphere by burning fossil fuels.  In the current scenario, CO2 is forcing warming, not increasing as a feedback result of warming due to cyclical wobbling of the earth in orbit, etc.

Warming by CO2 is the same in either case ... it's basic physics, and the physics has been known for 150 years or so ...

As the climate scientists like to say ... if increased CO2 doesn't cause warming, you need to disprove some very basic physics that's been around for a long time.

Date: 2007/03/15 00:24:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
A Channel 4 documentary claimed that climate change was a conspiratorial lie. But an analysis of the evidence it used shows the film was riddled with distortions and errors

One graph they use to "debunk" reality is labeled as coming from NASA.

Curious people began to look and it turns out the graph didn't come from NASA, but from an industry-funded anti-site.

Even better, the graph from that site only goes up until 1980, but the TV show labeled the X-axis as extending to 2000 (rescaling the years apparently to make it appear the "no warming as recently as 1980" extend to 2000 - oops!).

NASA actually has at least one graph on their climate science [sub?]site bringing that data up-to-date which directly contradicts the graphs given in the documentary.

The show's producer, who happens to be an anti-environmental recent communist (no shit!  the right is riding the back of a friggin' ultra-leftist), said "oh, our graphics designers re-did the X-axis, that was a mistake".

Yeah, that's what graphics designers do, uh-huh.  I work with them all the time.  None I know would do so without asking for approval.

As for the rest of the problems with this "documenfictionary", go read Real Climate.

Again I'm shaking my head wondering that some people here, well-schooled in the bullshit techniques of the ID crowd, would fall for such dreck.

Oh!  Just remembered.  Roy Spencer, whose analysis of satellite data once purported to show that the temperature of the troposphere was cooler than measured from the ground and that temperatures had actually cooled, not warmed, in the 1990s .... is an ID advocate.  Wrote so in Tech Central Station a year or two ago!  Re-gargles all the standard creationist/IDist canards without a single original thought.

(BTW his and Christy's analysis of the satellite data collapsed due to simple algebraic and one sign (!) error.  Even God can't protect evangelical southern baptists like Christy and Spencer from mistaking "+" for "-" ... after correction the satellite measurements in question confirm the GCMs).

Date: 2007/03/15 13:00:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
I find this comment by shaner74 truly amazing ...
This video was fantastic! Thank you DaveScot. After a recent engine build, I got my 76′ Trans Am fired up today. It should get about 8 mpg if I don’t touch the gas pedal. I’ve owned it for 7 years now and many times people have kindly “informed” me of how I’m ruining the earth with it. I always thought they were morons but it’s nice to see video confirmation of it.

So one video categorized as a "polemic" by its producer (one in a series, apparently) starring mostly previously-discredited industry shills is enough to make this idiot believe that thousands of working scientists the world over are lying about the results of their work.


Date: 2007/03/15 15:57:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Look, I don't know enough to understand the arguments they are using.

My point is that anyone familiar with the tactics used by intelligent design creationists to mislead those who don't know biologists should recognize their use in a pseudo-scientific documentary such as "Swindle".

When the same handful of "experts" show up over and over again saying "thousands of scientists are wrong, why they don't consider solar inputs, they don't tell you CO2 lags warming, blah blah blah" your bullshit alarm should be sounding off at a deafening level.

That's true of *any* fringe attack on mainstream science of this sort!  You don't really need to understand the science to understand the fact that they're lying, ignorant, incompetent, or all three.

Heres a thing, is it true that CO2 emisioins follow past records of global warming by 800 C.years? If that is the case (and I am not claiming it is) then why would this not lead to a possitive feedback cycle that makes warming unrecoverable?

It's believed that runaway greenhouse warming's extremely unlikely if not impossible given earth's distance from the sun and climate chemistry.  Real Climate has a section on it.

Date: 2007/03/15 21:21:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
I've only heard politicians say that 1000's of scientists said something and I rarely believe what any politician says just because they said it.

In other words, you've not been paying attention, and when a so-called documentary on TV (for Christ's sake!) claims that there's a "swindle" being performed by the worldwide community climate scientists why ... you keep an "open mind" and say ... "hey, they may be right!  They're all lying!".

At the risk of offending you, your google-poking and publishing of graphs and the like here reminds me a bit of the research methodology employed by the likes of Dave Scot.


If you don't trust background material written by leading climate scientists (complete with references and cites to the extremely vast peer-reviewed literature on the subject) go read the IPCC TAR 4 summary for policy makers (written, not as claimed by some denialists by politicians, but by the scientists involved in writing the full IPCC TAR that's just out/coming out soon/whatever).

If you don't trust the work of the 2000+ scientists involved in the generation of this latest IPCC report, well, heck, you're in UD territory.

Yeah, see there you go. CO2 concentrations have risen from about 265 ppm in 1900 to about 365 ppm in 2000. So that's what 38% increase?

It will rise to at least 500 ppm this century even if we take drastic measures, which is a doubling in 200 years.


Ocean temps lag atmospheric temps.

As it catches up in the next decades, guess what happens?

Hint: Remember that 800 yr lag when ice ages end that people claim "proves" CO2 isn't a forcing?

Date: 2007/03/15 21:29:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
Mr Durkin's film argued that most global warming over the past century occurred between 1900 and 1940

This was "proven" by taking a graph from an anti-climate warming site, dishonestly claiming it came from NASA, and changing the "1980" date at the far right of the X-axis to "2000" to leave the impression that there's not been significant warming in the last 27 years.

Gosh :)

and that there was a period of cooling between 1940 and 1975 when the post-war economic boom was under way. This showed, he said, that global warming had little to do with industrial emissions of carbon dioxide

What it actually shows is that other forms of air pollution (sulfates and other aerosol compounds) along with a large volcanic eruption in the early 1970s counterbalanced the warming effect of added CO2.

Date: 2007/03/16 17:29:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
As for the  "heat island" idea. Surely at some point those islands would meet up over time and regularity would they not? If so, when would that be? (probably said that badly: to rephrase: At what point would the "heat islands" be so numerous as to have a global rather than a local effect?)

The problem isn't so much that "heat islands" (in common English, "cities") contribute to global warming, but rather they can impact local temperatures, particularly near the ground, where measurements have been taken for decades.

An early denialist claim was that global temperatures haven't really been rising, but rather the air surrounding thermometers located in cities has been rising because of the increase in pavement as the auto took hold, etc etc.

Well, we have thirty-odd years of satellite and more of radiosonde (weather balloon) measurements.  When all sources are tweaked for known problems (i.e. different biases in different generations of reporting equipment in balloons, heat island effects, etc) all three agree.

This is why all but the most entrenched, most unscientific denialists no longer argue that the earth isn't warming.  They now argue that sure, there's warming, but a) it's natural (solar etc) and b) it will be good for us or at least not harmful.

As far as Real Climate coming across as being "entrenched", well ... if you go to a physics site, don't you expect them to be "entrenched", too, in regard to things that are settled?  Do you expect them to act in any other way if, say, someone comes along and says some unknown and unmeasured force causes the orbital positions of the planets to affect life on earth, and that we can determine a person's future if we know their birth date and the positions of the planets?

Medical researchers are likewise "entrenched" in regard to homeopathy, because homeopathic preparations are indistinguishable from distilled water.

As far as not trusting the UN as being a reason to not trust an entire field of scientific endeavor ... wow.  BTW, they're not UN scientists, maybe that will help you ...

Do you trust the National Academy of Sciences, by any chance?  AAAS?  The other dozens of national and international scientific organizations that endorse the basic science underlying climate science?

Phonon: no, it's not hypocritical for me to point you a web site run by scientists after flogging your for your random google efforts.  Real Science cites the published research upon which their articles are based.  You can go beyond the website to the scientific literature if you want, that's the point.  And they discuss in detail many of the papers cited by denialists - generally older papers which have later been shown to be wrong.  They'll provide you cites to the original papers, and then those that show them to be in error, etc.

That's useful.  One paper cited by the C4 documentary, for instance, was published in 1991 and in the intervening 16 years was shown to be in error.   The same technique - citing old work and ignoring more recent work - would undoubtably fool many of the public into believing that Pons was right about Cold Fusion after all, and that the truth is being supressed because physicists can't allow a chemist to trump them, or because Utah's largely Mormon, or  ...

Date: 2007/03/16 17:44:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is it true that in the historical records CO2 rises lagged temperature rises by aproximately 800 years?
Is it true that CO2 in the atmosphere increases warming?
IF both previous questions are answered as yes, then why does this not result in a positive feedback loop that eventually boils the Earths oceans?

It happened on Venus, which is quite toasty as a result.

Someone above pointed out that temperature doesn't increase linearly as CO2 is added to the atmosphere.  BTW this is why climatologists talk about doublings of CO2 (an exponential series) rather than the adding of a certain amount (say 100 ppm).

So at some point, even if you add a lot of CO2, not much happens.

And of course the amount of carbon available to put in the atmosphere as CO2 is limited anyway.

The short answer to your question, as I understand it, is that the only way we could have a runaway greenhouse effect like happened on Venus is if the water on earth boiled away (as happened on Venus).  The combination of the chemistry of our atmosphere, physics, and our distance from the sun (Venus gets a lot more energy per square meter than the earth because it's closer to the sun) means that it will never get hot enough to boil off all the water on earth, and our planet won't enter a runaway greenhouse effect.

Maybe the water will boil off if the sun novas but we won't care at that point :)

Date: 2007/03/17 20:54:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Here is some info on oceans and methane hydrates and the Permian extinction event

Stephen - note that this "UN-listed" scientist, Gavin Schmidt, actually works for NASA, not the UN.   He's also a founder of, and frequent contributor to, Real Climate.

NASA also employs two well-known skeptics, Christy and Spencer, whose work with satellite data "proved" that the troposphere is actually cooling slightly, not warming.

So much for the claims by the likes of Lindzen that skeptics are discriminated against, can't get work, blah blah blah (sounds a bit llike the UD claims that "darwinism" would collapse if the Science Cabal didn't prevent honest researchers from getting jobs, doesn't it?)

Unfortunately for Christy and Spencer, they made a few basic algebraic and one sign error and the data actually shows warming when analyzed properly (which they both grudgingly agree with now, both having switched to variants of the "it will be good for us" argument).

Date: 2007/03/18 00:27:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
What kind of IDiot puts simple quiz answers on the web in PDF format?

Date: 2007/03/18 18:23:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
So there are skeptics in the climatology community that aren't paid shills for oil companies? That's not what I heard.  

(just joshin' )

Those two are rather interesting, now that you mention it.  They work in the field (as does Lindzen), unlike the majority of denialists, most of whom aren't climatologists and often aren't even scientists, McKittrick is a mining engineer.

Oh, an engineer - sounds familiar, eh?

Also familiar-sounding will be the fact that Christy and Spencer are Southern Baptist fundies, much like Dembski ...

Date: 2007/04/03 18:49:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Kristine sez:
I believe in paying taxes, but they're taxing these people's efforts. If fuel is practically non-polluting and they make it, why shouldn't it be free?

Fuel taxes pay for roads, it's really a form of road-use tax.  Mileage, for instance, is worse for heavier vehicles than for lighter vehicles (ignoring differences in technology such as hybrid powerplants).  Heavier vehicles also cause more wear-and-tear on roads.

Oregon also taxes biodiesel made by organizations such as Portland's Biodiesel Collective IF it is used to power a vehicle on public roads.

Likewise, Oregon (and many other states) don't tax fuels, conventional or otherwise, if they are NOT used to power a vehicle on public roads, i.e. for ag use.

There's really no reason for someone not to pay what is in essence a road use tax just because they make their own fuel ...

Date: 2007/05/02 16:57:42, Link
Author: dhogaza

Can you explain how a libertarian is an enemy of civil rights?

They don't believe that government should be in the business of legislating civil rights.

That was easy.


Wow, and all these exaggerated characterizations of libertarians are amazing.

Having debated many of them over the years, I don't find the characterizations exaggerated at all.


I guess I'm trying to defend libertarians because I respect so many libertarian people and agree with a lot of their positions, especially with respect to war.

I've never noticed a consistent position among libertarians regarding war.  I'll note that defense is one area of government spending and control they believe is warranted.

My major problem with Libertarians is that they tend to be totally inflexible - government is ALWAYS bad, the market is ALWAYS better, regardless of whatever empirical data exists that refutes that belief.

Ayn Rand was a utopian whose right-wing fantasies were as impractical as the utopian notions of the far left.

A lot of software engineers are libertarian ... too much Robert Heinlein is my guess, an inability to see that entertaining utopian yarns like "The Moon is a Harsh Mistress" paint a very unrealistic picture of humankind.

Interestingly, when outsourcing and H1Bs and the dotbomb combined to make it no longer possible to make $125K/yr as an HTML "programmer", a lot of anti-government libertarian dotcom young 'uns suddenly began screaming for government protectionism to help them maintain something like a reasonable salary ...

Regarding comments like "Democrats have never been on the left ..." harumph.

Franklin Roosevelt was moderately socialist.  His ag secretary was an avowed socialist.  People tend to forget this because they forget (or never learned) that something like 2/3 of the New Deal was declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

And to declare that the two parties are nearly identical today.  Pfft.  I've been involved in forest and desert conservation issues since the 1970s, and there's no comparision between (say) Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush and, in contrast, Bill Clinton or Al Gore.

Date: 2007/05/07 11:10:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
As noted above, Dumbski sez
Global warming is important to the discussion over intelligent design because the same bag of tricks used to invalidate ID get used to invalidate criticism of man-made global warming.

And what is the name of this "bag of tricks"?


Date: 2007/05/09 18:59:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Granville Sewell says the strangest thing ...
The objection raised by “bFast” reminds me of an objection that is raised almost every time I write about the second law. Nature can create order out of disorder, goes the argument, it happens every time a fertilized egg grows into a baby! I usually respond by saying it isn’t clear that this is actually an increase in order (or information), the information is already there in the DNA, because I don’t want to fall into the trap set for me, and try to argue that the birth of a baby violates the second law. But, please, give me an example that doesn’t involve life!

Give me an example that doesn't involve life?  Apparently he doesn't understand what evolutionary biologists study ...

Date: 2007/05/11 16:47:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
bornagain77 (apparently born twice but brainless each time) sez:
Similarities is evolutionists strongest point of contention, yet you forget a few things. Scientists are to the point of declaring ALL mutations to DNA detrimental to the organism.  This keeps in line with the second law of thermodynamics.

Wow, scientists have declared all mutations to DNA as being detrimental, eh?

Date: 2007/05/13 20:23:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh-oh, those evil people denying Gonzalez tenure are in deep doo-doo now.  Davetard's riding to the rescue!
I’m here to tell you sir when the good people of Iowa find out their children are going to a state university where atheists are made professors of religious studies, while a Christian astronomer is being shown the door for having the temerity to publish good science that reasonably suggests the earth is a rare and special planet, heads are going to roll.

Actually it's far more likely that eyes are going to roll in disbelief at Davetard's tardicity.

Date: 2007/05/13 23:45:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, if DaveTard were important enough for them to know who the hell he is.

Oh, I think they can eye-roll at his tardicity without realizing who he is, don't you?

Though it might not be as pleasurable an eye-roll if they don't, of course. :)

Date: 2007/05/15 23:45:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, there is a silver lining:
This Guillermo outrage is yet another reason for parents to start defunding the biased bigots in the universities. Enough arguing. Use your economic power.

Yes, don't send your kids to university.  They'll do well as Sanitation Engineers.

Date: 2007/05/18 00:03:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
I live in the Southern Hemisphere, and have no pole star. Maybe the Intelligent Designer only designed the north.

Of course!  Certainly you're aware that for the longest time, white people lived exclusively in the northern hemisphere ...


Date: 2007/05/23 08:59:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sewell sayeth:
Unless, of course, you believe that it is  not  really extremely improbable that the four forces of physics would rearrange the basic particles of physics into computers and TV sets and libraries full of novels and science texts; in that case I can’t reach you.

Someone send that boy a good dictionary, opened to the page that defines "life" ...

Shouldn't he be calling his "law" "Paley's Law", rather than name it after himself?

Date: 2007/05/27 15:15:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote of the day ...
Anthropogenic warming through CO2 is a fallacy. It can’t stand up against the evidence even now and all it’s going to take to make a laughingstock of the consensus science and agenda driven politics behind it is finding the real cause of climate heating and cooling. When the anthropogenic global warming hoax falls it’s going to give consensus science a black eye that will IMO take down other consensus science just-so stories along with it. NeoDarwinian macro-evolution is one of those other stories.

I won't bother identifying the author of this gem.  Y'all have already figured it out :)

Date: 2007/05/30 11:39:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
UD's suffering from a bad case of the DTs ...
In a rational world we’d be thrilled that the earth is warming up. Increased CO2 levels do little but help if the facts are allowed to speak. If we didn’t have fossil fuel to burn we’d be looking to invent some other way of getting more CO2 into the atmosphere to warm up the earth and make plants grow better.

Well, now warming is happening, apparently, but ... we should embrace it.

It's only taken DT a few days to go from the denialist "it's not happening" stance to the current denialist "it's good for us!" stance.  Took the professionals about 15 years to take that journey.


Date: 2007/05/30 16:23:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, apparently Jesus was nothing special, given that the "temporarily deceased" who experience "after life experiences" are clearly resurrected shortly afterwards ...

Date: 2007/06/07 19:34:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
The supposed fisking of Chu-Carroll includes this gem:

Chu goes into a long diatribe over Behe’s use of the “fitness landscape” concept in his argument. It seems to me these criticisms are obfuscations and irrelevant to Behe’s thesis...

(jaw hits floor)

Let's see ... the mathematical foundation of Behe's attempt at mathematically proving his point is irrelevant to Behe's thesis.

Got it!

Date: 2007/06/21 00:08:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
This paradigm is not entirely accurate though as frameshifts are often used to encode additional functional proteins using the same sequence and sometimes reading a sequence in reverse (frameshifted or not)

Frameshifts don't save you bits.  This is why (to pick an old example) Telex 6-bit was replaced by TWX eight-bit.

Well, it can save you bits if frameshifts are very, very rare.  But in that case, there's little "extra information".  DaveTard's argument only holds if frameshifts are common, in which case, getting rid of them in favor of a larger charset is more efficient.

EEs understood this umm let me think ... I was using TWX rather than Telex 40 years ago (I was quite young, though!) ... yes, they understood a very long time ago.

Date: 2007/06/28 14:58:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
William Dembski
Hermagoras is no longer with us.

Date: 2007/07/06 07:54:33, Link
Author: dhogaza
IIRC, condors may be the biggest birds around capable of flight. High weight for the California condor is about 23 pounds, according to Wikipedia.

Naw, trumpeter swans can weigh close to 30 lbs.

And they really fly.  None of that wimpy-assed soaring shit :)

Mongolians do their eagle falconry from horseback.

Date: 2007/07/08 12:39:30, Link
Author: dhogaza

A belated explanation of how I ended up posting as you at the sciphishow.

Apparently the forums software there keeps the login token within the URL you use to post to the site (as opposed to setting a cookie).

When you posted the link to that thread here, you included that login token.

So when I went there, I was offered a "post" link.  I didn't notice it was posting as you, I thought it was allowing an anonymous post.

I'm visiting a friend here in Madrid and have been offline for a couple of days so didn't realize what had happened, nor your concern about it.


Date: 2007/07/11 05:42:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Solar activity 'not the cause of global warming'

Nothing new here from the POV of the climate science community, which has been asking all along, "why doesn't the data support the hypothesis?"

It's a pity time and money needs to be spent putting together a review article for publication in order to fight right-wingnuttery.

Of course, the wingnuts won't be going away.  There are variants on the solar activity hypothesis which introduce hypothetical magic time lags (unexplained, unknown and unpredicted by any physical process known to science) in order to correlate solar activity with warming/cooling in historical times.

Date: 2007/07/17 11:47:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, God, Denyse is bringing the old claim that Stephen Jay Gould didn't really believe in evolution back to life.

Here on her blog.

Date: 2007/08/01 03:26:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
They're a bunch of computer types and they can't get a web server to stay up for more than five minutes at a time.

Well, the furious pace of post deletion, bannation, etc puts quite the strain on the server, you know!

Date: 2007/08/06 07:09:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
Their real target, as with "Pandas", is elementary public schools.  

So they ARE talking to twelve-year olds.

Hmmm, actually, I think it's targetted at fundie xtians parents who homeschool their twelve-year olds.

This explains the low standard of writing quite easily, no? :)

Date: 2007/08/12 01:27:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ian, why not simply concede to your discussant that you don't know enough physics to either assent to or refute his argument from SLoT and leave it at that?

Or, better, point out that not enough is known about physics by physicists to tell us precisely what happened early in the Big Bang, so any argument about causation is pure speculation.

Date: 2007/08/12 01:28:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
And be sure to tell him that the Big Bang is just a theory, and please spend a lot of time teaching him the controversy!

Date: 2007/08/17 16:56:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Wow, that is one weasily dishonest statement by Meyer.  Not a hint that the "controversy" within science has nothing to do with the "controversy" creationists conjure up.

Date: 2007/09/15 13:35:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Google has picked up Dembski's blog post with the Baylor Board of Regents phone numbers and addresses.

(scroll to the bottom of the first page, where Google lists "Blog posts...")

Billy has been a very bad boy.

Date: 2007/11/08 19:34:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
According to my sources the press teleconference was postponed due to illness (John West).

I suppose it's too much to hope for that he got sick after reading his own words while preparing for the press conference ...

Date: 2007/11/10 13:36:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
The global warming debate has striking parallels to the evolution/intelligent design debate...

Actually, this is an accurate statement, but not for the reason the poster over at UD had in mind ...

Date: 2007/11/11 19:29:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
That can't really be Larry.  I refuse to believe it! :)

Date: 2007/11/12 20:00:26, Link
Author: dhogaza


Then I hope to God I end up in hell, because a heaven with Bornagain77 in it would be more hellish than hell itself.

Date: 2007/11/14 21:11:27, Link
Author: dhogaza
This one is priceless (well, a lot of them are, come to think of it, but this one made me explode in insane laughter):
None of the glaring problems of "big science" were explored. A perfect example was the expert who presented the cross between fish and the amphibian. In his fourth trip to the Canadian Arctic "just as the money was about to run out" he just happened to make his big discovery. You can't tell me this gentleman didn't have an agenda and purpose in finding what he found when he found it. What happened if he didn't make some kind of discovery? Well, his funding would have run out of course. Why wasn't this clear conflict of interest explored? If you go into any course of discovery hellbent on finding something, guess what? You will find it!

Date: 2007/11/23 13:19:28, Link
Author: dhogaza

Shot this one for a biologist friend working for the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.  Red-legged frog male in amplexus with a bullfrog female.  Illegal in ten southern states!

Date: 2007/11/23 15:16:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
She was managing surveys of Burlington Bottoms on the lower Columbia, which was part of a mitigation land swap deal a bunch of years past.  I think it was a part-time or contract position at the time.  I think ODF&W's main office was still here in PDX at the time but my memory's a bit vague, that photo's a bit old.

She's no longer with ODF&W ...

Date: 2007/11/24 12:30:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
BWE: Yes, I live in PDX, though I'm leaving soon to spend most of winter in Spain.


I have a paper where we explain this - basically it works if the males aren't very good at recognising their own species, but like big female frogs.

Actually, the researcher who designed this survey was thrilled by my photo, because he'd been looking for a good one.   Not only do bullfrogs eat smaller red-legged frogs, especially their young, but due to the male red-legged frog's preference for big females, reduce the rate of reproduction because a substantial percentage of red-legged frog males are trying to mate with them rather then female red-legged frogs.

At least in some areas.

He'd gotten his PhD down in california studying the southern ... population? subspecies? I forget ... of red-legged frogs and his research helped lead to their being listed.  He was doing similar research up here while teaching.

Date: 2007/11/26 15:25:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dembski swears "it wasn't me who stole that video from harvard!"

Date: 2007/11/27 20:51:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
what do Michael Medved and Larry Fafarman have in common?

Whoa.  I'm getting happier every day that Medved's now a DI fellow.  That's some tarderific defense of slavery in the US, there.

One thing they don't have in common, though, I doubt if Medved's a Holocaust Denier like Larry :)

Date: 2007/11/29 23:47:59, Link
Author: dhogaza

The first problem is that the refrigerator was designed and contains a machine that takes advantage of the available energy to locally defy entropic tendencies.

That is probably the stupidest thing I've heard an IDer say in the last ... one thousand ... nanoseconds.

Date: 2007/12/01 00:12:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
sn't Luskin a Lawyer?  Did he go to Law School?  Did he pass the Bar?

Apparently, yes.

Is Luskin a Total Idiot?

No, of course not, when you understand he's not interested in truth, but rather fighting the "culture war" in K-12 schools, hoping to blunt or even stop the teaching of science to kids in public schools.

Date: 2007/12/02 23:18:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, this will be fun.  Will they free the code?

Date: 2007/12/02 23:28:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
guidance, navigation and control software in aerospace R&D, and most recently with finite-element analysis programming

The odd thing with Gil is he actually thinks these are SIMULATIONS.

Not at all, unless you think that traditional navigation is a "simulation".  This stuff is just traditional navigation with more input, faster computational ability, and hardware that reacts to inputs more reliably (by far) than old square-rigged sailing ships.

Date: 2007/12/13 08:12:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
even though empirically verifiable science is what I do every day for a living

Poor Gil doesn't understand that programming computers to implement solutions to solved problems is not doing "empirically verifiable science".

Not only does that include guiding things thrown out of airplanes, but  also implementing a checkers program using an exhaustive search of the set of all possible moves.

Someone should ask Gil why he hasn't written an equally successful chess  program :)

Date: 2007/12/23 03:42:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
If you haven't read this review at Amazon, you should.  It sums up the ID vs. science "controversy" beautifully.

Date: 2008/01/01 04:15:34, Link
Author: dhogaza

Why would humans undertake dairy farming if they couldn?t actually eat/drink dairy products?

Perhaps because mature cheese contains very little lactose?  In addition to simply eating the critters, as was mentioned above?

Date: 2008/01/09 12:06:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
According to their website, Taylor County is home to the
Cracker Homestead Museum.

I kid you not ...

Date: 2008/01/12 04:23:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
It is possible our friend is just a sloppy writer, but read literally ...

The idea that we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life springs from ignorance and fear, and not rationality.

I disagree.

the above would seem to indicate that he believes that

1. we should abandon research into natural causes for the origin of life and

2. he has a rational argument as to why we should abandon that line of research

I'd like to hear the rational argument.

Date: 2008/01/13 03:41:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
Poor Gil Dodgen doesn't understand what science is...
I like the science in which I work: aerospace research and development. If it flies, the science is good. If it crashes, the science is bad.

If the airplane crashes, it is badly engineered.  The underlying science isn't bad.  Perhaps it's been misapplied, or perhaps that carbon-fiber vertical stabilizer is a tad more rigid and unforgiving than your pilots understood.  But whatever, Gil's working in engineering, hacking software for control systems.  He's not a scientist, and he's not working in science, and it's abundantly clear that he has no clue as to what science is.

Date: 2008/01/25 03:13:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, I'm spending part of winter in a suburb on the outskirts of Madrid, and have recently had the time to start exploring some of the empty country that's barely within walking distance (littered with construction cranes building new flats, unfortunately).

Nothing interesting for a european birder, but ... (eurasian) goldfinch, black redstart, stonechat, crested lark, grey partridge (one, and it's a bit out of place), robin, chiffchaff, spotless starling, white wagtail, (eurasian) kestrel, hen harrier, and for Wesley ...

a peregrine wearing jesses and bells.  The guy flying it spoke no english, and my spanish sucks, but he had another peregrine hooded in the back of his SUV, and gradually got me to understand that it was the mother of the bird-of-the-year he was training.  And that it was from the US.  And previously owned by some famous animal trainer I've never heard of.  And was in some famous movie whose title in spanish doesn't ring a bell.  He flies his peregrine at the airport, part of the scare-the-birds regime there.  The kid was beautiful, a very nice rich brown.

Apparently I can take a bus this weekend to a place where seeing griffon is quite likely, with spanish imperial eagle a possibility, too.

When here last summer I managed to see a bunch of other species, including a golden eagle in the picos de europa.

Date: 2008/02/04 11:46:55, Link
Author: dhogaza

Also bear in mind that Darwinism’s record isn’t nearly as good as the New England Patriots’ going into Super Bowl XLII.

Let's see, Darwin's had a winning record going on what, 150 years more or less?  American football wasn't even evented 150 years ago.

Date: 2008/02/05 21:50:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
So John Davison is rational about climate science and AGW.

I wonder what he was like before he went totally whacko in regard to biology 20 years ago?  And I have to wonder what event triggered that.

Poor John, though, he truly is babbling to himself on his blog.  Alan Watt has posted a few times in the global warming thread, but the "recent comments" box tells a sad tale:


# John A Davison on WHY BANISHMENT?
# John A Davison on WHY BANISHMENT?
# John A Davison on WHY BANISHMENT?
# John A Davison on WHY BANISHMENT?
# John A Davison on WHY BANISHMENT?

Date: 2008/02/06 12:30:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Asaltydog - slang for penis - has just gotta be a fun-loving trolling sockpuppet, no?

Date: 2008/02/26 19:50:44, Link
Author: dhogaza

Things are slow at the tard mine.

Did you HAVE to post this?  I think they must've noticed.

Three posts in rapid succession, one each by DaveTard, BarryAss, and DLH, proclaiming that climate science is a fraud and that we've just entered a new era of Global Cooling.

Date: 2008/02/27 15:39:17, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dave sez...

It does however serve to show the global warming alarmists were full of hot air. There hasn’t been any warming at all for the past 10 years and, to add insult to injury, the average global temperature plummeted faster than anyone has seen before. In the meantime CO2 level in the atmosphere has kept right on rising as fast or faster than ever before. The facts don’t fit the CO2 boogeyman story now and never have. It was all driven by a leftist agenda to stop burning fossil fuels - nothing more and nothing less. The public at large was gulled. I was pretty confident that the cold would return like it always does and with it would come the realization they’d been had. This was just 20 years of gulling.

It will be interesting to see what he says once this La Niña-driven cold spell is over and average temps continue their relentless march upwards.

And the notion that a single January to January comparison tells us anything about long-term trends is astonishingly stupid even for someone as brain-dead as Dave Scot ...

It's also a pity that no one over there with posting privileges is smart enough to correct his mistatement that "There hasn’t been any warming at all for the past 10 years", since the trend's still up even if you cherry-pick the 1998 El Niño year as your starting point ...

Date: 2008/04/13 13:35:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Does this mean I can create the Doc Bill Research Foundation, declare it to be not-for-profit and solicit money to enable me to "think" all day.  Great Thoughts, mind you, although I think best in a new BMW.

Somehow, there has to be more to it; some regulation.

Who's our non-profit expert?

You can more or less do that.  I know two individuals who, back the 1980s, started not-for-profits here to finance their own personal field research into raptors.  Both have grown to include more people than the founder (and one was such a prick he eventually got fired from his "own" not-for-profit).  But in the beginning, it was just them.  One has spent extensive time traveling the world doing field work, funded by donations from a variety of well-heeled people interested in raptors.

Nice gig, actually.

And in the open source software world, non-profits are common, providing a mechanism to provide support for developers, etc.  I derive a small part of my income in this way.

Not-for-profits are corporations, so you need the baggage - President, Treasurer and a board in my state, need to do your annual reports, tax reports.  You have to get your corporation qualified as being tax-exempt.  I don't know if "sitting around, thinking" would qualify but "research" probably would :)

So, hey, go for it, push those boundaries!

Date: 2008/04/13 19:25:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
No, he doesn't say global warming doesn't exist, after all he's modeling the impact of warming on tropical cyclone frequency and intensity over the next 200 years.

However the first three responses to the post read as though the writers BELIEVE that Emmanuel is reversing his position on global warming itself.

Interesting how quickly a denialist like Dave embraces model output when it agrees with his own bias, since we continuously hear that the models can't be trusted ...

Date: 2008/04/18 18:22:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
Too late for "shhh..."


Why troll?

Intelligent Design Institute Of Theoretical Science

Your version of BRITES?

Not polite to go to someone’s house and call them an IDiot.

Perhaps not polite, but honest, at least!

Date: 2008/04/26 14:03:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, better yet, as one would expect its second Friday has brought in much less than its opening friday.  Only $450,000 (estimated) at Box Office Mojo, and down to #13.

It's not going to hold on to those 1000 screens much longer, I don't think.

Date: 2008/05/08 13:10:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
The atomic bomb was a terrorist attack. It was to demonstrate to the Japanese the level of destruction they would suffer if they didn't surrender. To strike fear into the hearts of the enemy.

Well, Japan was already toast and tottering, we were hurrying to make sure that the bomb got delivered before the USSR entered the war, which we were quite sure would lead to Japan's surrender without the need to invade.  Most of our military leadership are on record of believing that Japan would collapse without invasion as soon as the USSR followed through on her promise to enter the war in August.

The demonstration was as much for the benefit of the USSR as Japan, arguably more so, as we had no idea that the USSR was already well-informed about the Manhattan project, including the success of Trinity, and was in possession of most of the details of the design of the plutonium implosion bomb.  

It's correct to state that Hiroshima had very little military value.  This is why it had been spared conventional firebombing up to that point.  The targeting team was tasked with finding an intact city to nuke, so we could better measure the destructive effect of the bomb.  Thus Hiroshima.  Nagasaki suffered from particularly bad luck, as she was the secondary, not primary, target of that raid.

Date: 2008/05/17 15:44:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
I was buying supplies for a 10 person 10 day field work project in the Colorado Desert in Dec. 1999.  We had lots of food and water, (hardware, like tents, pots and pans had been bought in earlier projects).  As we checked out, there were dozens of people who assumed we were antisipating the end of the world.

Ha!  I used to buy food and supplies for a field project lasting 12 weeks each fall, with an average crew of 25.

But no one at the large warehouse store where I bought most staples thought that buying pickup trucks full of food at a time was unusual.

Of course, I was doing so in Utah ... if you know anything about Mormonism, you know why it didn't raise any eyebrows.

Date: 2008/07/05 12:40:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
So Schlafly now wants to figure out a way to sue Lenski into stopping what he's doing for several months and handing over every scrap of data to a group who couldn't possibly understand it.

I've pointed this out elsewhere, but this whole pathetic set of demands and (now) threat of lawsuit is a page out of Steve McIntyre's playbook (Climate Audit).

In particular, McIntyre has made all sets of demands to get access to Lonnie Thompson's "raw" data based on PNAS requirements, government grant requirements, Science journal (or was it Nature) requirements, etc.

In each case he's been told that the data provided by Thompson is either adequate or predates the current guidelines (IIRC in regard to online access, as much of Thompson's work was done before such guidelines were set).

McIntyre has gone so far as to state he'd sue Thompson/Feds/etc over taxpayer-funding-of-research fantasies if it weren't for the fact that he (McIntyre) is Canadian and would have no standing, blah blah blah.

Anyway, rest assured that Schafly's ranting is a 3rd-rate imitation of McIntyre's original, which in itself was remarkably pathetic and has gone nowhere...

Date: 2008/07/10 14:08:49, Link
Author: dhogaza
Water vapor is an important greenhouse gas. However, CO2 has a disproportionate effect because it closes an important gap in the emission spectrum

Not to mention that CO2 doesn't turn to rain.  Warm the world, you get more water vapor, cool it off, it rains out.  Thus it's considered a feedback, not a forcing.

Even DaveTard should be able to understand that.

Date: 2008/07/12 03:33:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
Dr. GH:
Someone who does not have legal access to church property is requested to "score" some hosts. As I said earlier, If a priest wants to test divine wrath, I am fully willing to desecrate any host they have legal access to. But to generally broadcast that just "anyone" should try to "score ... some consecrated communion wafers" does incite people to break the law.

Last time I looked, anyone is welcome to attend a Catholic Mass.

Which law is broken by taking a host given freely by a priest, then departing church without having eaten it?  Catholic law, perhaps, but secular law?  Can you be a bit more precise?  Is it a state law that's being broken, or a federal one?

Also, I notice that your posts have no disclaimer regarding the views of your employer.  Should I then presume that your view that keeping an uneaten consecrated host freely given one by a priest at a mass open to the public breaks the law is the view of your employer, too?

Perhaps you should set a good example for PZM and add a disclaimer to your sig here ...

Date: 2008/07/12 13:31:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
The taking of property "under false pretenses", as Dr. GH put it, *might* be a crime.  Typically this falls under the category of "fraud", which frequently is a civil offense.  Depending on where you live, the classification might depend on the value of the property thereby attained.  

Dr. GH's example demonstrates that taking the host if you're not a catholic in good standing is a violation of Church law.  No quibble there.

But I'll continue to take Dr. GH's claim to legal expertise with a large grain of salt in light of the following:

Threats are assault.

Not in my state.  Note the repetitive use of the phrase "physical injury" and the notable lack of reference to "threat":

163.160 - Assault in the fourth degree
(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the fourth degree if the person:

(a) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to another; or

(b) With criminal negligence causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly weapon.

163.165 - Assault in the third degree
(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the third degree if the person:

(a) Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon;

(b) Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;

© Recklessly causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life;

(d) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes, by means other than a motor vehicle, physical injury to the operator of a public transit vehicle while the operator is in control of or operating the vehicle. As used in this paragraph, "public transit vehicle" has the meaning given that term in ORS 166.116;

(e) While being aided by another person actually present, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another;

(f) While committed to a youth correction facility, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another knowing the other person is a staff member of a youth correction facility while the other person is acting in the course of official duty;

(g) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes physical injury to an emergency medical technician or paramedic, as those terms are defined in ORS 682.025, while the technician or paramedic is performing official duties;

(h) Being at least 18 years of age, intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to a child 10 years of age or younger;

(i) Knowing the other person is a staff member, intentionally or knowingly propels any dangerous substance at the staff member while the staff member is acting in the course of official duty or as a result of the staff member's official duties; or

(j) Intentionally, knowingly or recklessly causes, by means other than a motor vehicle, physical injury to the operator of a taxi while the operator is in control of the taxi.
63.175 - Assault in the second degree
(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the second degree if the person:

(a) Intentionally or knowingly causes serious physical injury to another; or

(b) Intentionally or knowingly causes physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon; or

© Recklessly causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.

163.185 - Assault in the first degree
(1) A person commits the crime of assault in the first degree if the person intentionally causes serious physical injury to another by means of a deadly or dangerous weapon.

Mileage in your state might vary.  And, of course, if your threat leads to a medical crisis - heart attack, etc - it may then rise to the level of assault due to the harm it has caused.

But the threat *itself* is not an assault.  Not in Oregon.

One reason why crimes like burning a cross on a lawn is deemed a hate crime is precisely *because* existing law had little deterrent effect.  You might have trespass (civil or criminal), you might have property damage in the form of a scorched lawn (civil or criminal), if the burning cross gets out of control and starts a larger fire you might even have arson (finally, something with teeth!).  The solution: make burning of a cross on a lawn itself a specific crime with a punishment that is commensurate with the racist motivation and desire to frighten and intimidate the victim that lies behind it.

Date: 2008/07/12 14:22:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
As I said, the definition varies by state.  Congratulations.  

Now that we've got you reading the actual law, go for extra credit with a cite that demonstrates that a Catholic in good standing accepting the Host from a Priest, then leaving Mass without consuming it, has committed a crime, much less a "hate crime".

Note that PZM's "incitement to hate crime" didn't specify that NON-CATHOLICS accept communion.  Plenty of catholics are reading his posts on the matter and agree with him, and some have offered to score for him.

After failing at this task, feel free to take up a less challenging one - a cite that supports your claim that a non-Catholic attending Mass and accepting Communion is a secular crime.   More extra credit for evidence that it falls under Hate Crime statutes, federal or in PZM's state.

Date: 2008/07/12 14:27:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Interestingly, in Oregon it appears that accepting a cracker under false pretenses is never criminal fraud (the possibilities are iterated in our statutes).

So, perhaps the church could sue for civil defraud over the penny or so the cracker costs them ...

I imagine the wine's worth more, though.

Date: 2008/07/12 14:35:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, that website's not exactly a mystery.  Rather than quoting the FBI, though, I prefer the summary of the statute:

"a crime in which the defendant intentionally selects a victim, or in the case of a property crime, the property that is the object of the crime, because of the actual or perceived race, color, religion, national origin, ethnicity, gender, disability, or sexual orientation of any person."

Note that a hate crime involves two parts:

1. a crime must have been committed

2. the motivation for that crime was due to religion etc

Acceptance of the Host and removal from the Church can not be a hate crime unless it is first a property crime.

The hate crime statute in itself does not turn non-criminal behavior into criminal behavior, though individual laws against certain hate crimes (cross burning, for instance), very well may.

You might have a shot at demonstrating that the Church was defrauded of a cracker worth a penny or so, civil fraud, but good luck with your criminal charges.

I'd love to see an criminal indictment - "failure to eat cracker" ... "forgot to think of all the starving children in China" ...

Date: 2008/07/12 14:41:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
BTW, "kick the cracker" will be offensive to some, but not for the reason you imagined when writing it ...

Date: 2008/07/17 06:50:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
Is that Roy Spencer the same Roy Spencer that is a global warming denier?

Yes, the same Roy Spencer who works with John Christy at University of Alabama, Huntsville (or some appropriate expansion of "UAH", might not be a comma there).

The two who first published satellite temp reconstructions about eight years ago that claimed to show a cooling, rather than warming trend.  Touted by the Wall Street Journal and others as "the wooden stake driven through the heart of the AGW myth".

The only problem was that they'd made a few errors in their calculations, including one rather embarrassing sign error.  Took others years to ferret out their various errors (and the errors in the corrections they made to their first errors).

As it turns out, another outfit, RSS, who took the lead in exposing the UAH team's errors, has for years now published their own reconstructions.  Both they and the UAH gang's now show warming that's roughly consistent with the ground station record.

So now Spencer's off on some whacky pseudoscience stuff to "debunk" AGW.  For instance, all the CO2 is coming from the ocean, not our burning of fossil fuels, despite direct evidence to the contrary (such as "look at all that fossil fuel being burned!", and isotope evidence, acidification of the ocean showing uptake of CO2).  And there's some weird mechanism letting all the heat leak out of the troposphere into space.

Etc etc.  Total whackadoodle stuff.

So it's not really a surprise that he's a creationist, is it?  If it's still surprising, maybe the fact that both he and Christy are devout conservative fundy southern baptists will lessen the surprise?

(though christy is far more honest about climate science, taking more of a "it won't be bad" stance than the outright denialist position, and if he's a creationist has had the good sense to be quiet about it).

Date: 2008/07/18 03:50:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
Fine with me. I am going on the ocean tonight into the weekend to kill things. Grrrr

May the Host be with you, cracker ...

Date: 2008/07/18 07:34:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, the APS Physics and Society rag has asked for papers debating the science, then kicked it off with ...

A piece from Lord Monckton, who to climate science is roughly equivalent to Behe to evolutionary science.


Date: 2008/07/18 10:13:33, Link
Author: dhogaza
Earlier on, somebody thought a Viking funeral would be a good idea

Oh, my, showing my age ... the Purple People Eaters.

One of those dudes ended up as a State Supreme Court Justice in Minnesota.  Talking about justice being swift and harsh ...

Date: 2008/07/18 16:58:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
Off topic, but Olegt will be glad to see this, apparently the leadership of the APS is not happy with Monckton's being given space to spew his anti-science crap in the Physics and Society online newsletter.  Methinks the editor's bottom may've been spanked red.  Regardless, they've added this (in red font to match his bottom?):

The following article has not undergone any scientific peer review. Its conclusions are in disagreement with the overwhelming opinion of the world scientific community. The Council of the American Physical Society disagrees with this article's conclusions.

Politely said, a fair number of our 50,000 physicists are appalled by the appearance of this crap and we've been flooded with e-mails and phone calls all day asking why suddenly we've become a poster child of the anti-science denialist community...

Date: 2008/07/19 03:17:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
Of course GW deniers immediately jumped on this, but what else do you expect from them?  They would do it no matter how carefully the editors worded their introduction.

My question is why give a pulpit to Monckton's crap in the first place?

There's nothing new in his piece, and the errors in it have been pointed out  any number of times elsewhere.  It's the equivalent of the APS online newsletter giving Dembski the opportunity to mathematically "prove" that evolution is impossible through one of his "tornado in a junkyard" probability calculations.  One can give voice to controversy without giving an additional outlet for previously disproven crockpottery.

The fact of the matter is that the editor should've known that the appearance of Monckton's piece would be jumped on as giving credibility to the denialist side, just as an appearance by Dembski would be jumped on as giving "science cred" to ID.

Climate science denialism and ID are both alike in the sense that they're political movements that have nothing to do with science itself.  Both movements exist to undermine science.  There's no reason to give their pseudoscientific arguments room in any venue that purports to be about science.

(There are, of course, unanswered questions about climate science and evolution that lead to legitimate skepticism about certain details of the science, otherwise there'd be no work to do, I'm not talking about that.)

And that's the irony about the APS physics and society lead editorial.  In it, the editor says, "stick to the science, please!" but the last lengthy paragraph of Monckton's piece isn't about science at all, but policy.

"even if I'm wrong, even if ... even if ... even if ... we should do nothing".

Letting a largely political piece go through along with an editorial comment that responses should stick to the science and not discuss implications is just ... wrong.

I don't think the APS is overreacting at all, BTW.  The publication of this piece is going to be trotted out endlessly in venues ranging from Congressional hearings to influential press outlets like the Wall Street Journal.  And the story will be "if there's a scientific consensus, why did the APS state that a large number of scientists disagree, and then publish a scientific rebuttal to the IPCC AR4?".

You are going to be reading that for years.  And unlike the ID movement, the climate science denialism movement has been extremely effective in meeting their goal - primarily blocking meaningful action by the United States.

Date: 2008/07/19 08:23:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
 It won't make the conservative press, though.

Exactly, and that's what Monckton counts on.

Date: 2008/07/19 13:59:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Olegt points out ...
And he's already milking it.

Yeah, and more ...
commissioning editor referred it to his colleague, who subjected it to a
thorough and competent scientific review.

See how he's building a case for it being "peer reviewed", as a counter to the APS pointing out that the Physics and Society Newsletter is not a journal, and not peer reviewed.

Damage control on this one's going to be ongoing and difficult.  Every time the climate science community talks about the scientific consensus, Monckton's "invited, peer reviewed paper" is going to be trotted out.

The man's a politician, complaints about his competency don't lie in that realm ...

Date: 2008/07/20 02:15:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
Last OT post on this, but this appears to explain the APS's strong reaction to Monckton's piece, and I thought Olegt might find it interesting:

Quote organization that Monckton served as "chief policy advisor" for issued a press release ( whose first sentence says: "Mathematical proof that there is no 'climate crisis' appears today in a major, peer-reviewed paper in Physics and Society, a learned journal of the 10,000-strong American Physical Society, SPPI reports"

That "mathematical proof" bit fits right into creationist claims regarding evolutionary biology ... denialists of all stripes seem to share a common playbook.

Anyway, three lies in one sentence, not bad, two of which probably pissed off the APS:

1. He provided no such "mathematical proof"
2. It's not "peer-reviewed"
3. It's not a "learned journal", it's a newsletter

I don't think the APS overreacted a bit in aggressively distancing themselves from this glorified opinion piece ...

Date: 2008/07/20 06:04:14, Link
Author: dhogaza
I found that Baby Wipes (eg brand-name "Huggies") took good care of most wash-up needs in extended dry camps.

Is this part of some sort of field camp universal knowledge base?

I found out about baby wipes when put in charge of buying supplies for a field project in nevada.  Had a rough guide of how much food and other supplies to buy for an average of 25 people over a 12 week period, and came to ... "baby wipes?  baby wipes?".   I was assured of their necessity and, indeed, they are good!

Date: 2008/07/26 14:27:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
If you read that talk page closely, you'll see they intend to contact members of congress, either a cc: of the PNAS letter or in a separate letter.


There are two separate, though very related issues. The rigor of the experiment (this is what PNAS deals with) and the fact that such research is given funding (Congress and the watchdog groups have to do with this part). Lets address the first problem before we look at the second.

They have no chance of success, of course, but it's extremely telling that they want to work to ban funding for research of this type ...

Date: 2008/07/29 06:34:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
So that's conservapedia's readership! (pre-college students)

Conservapedia was created primarily to provide an "honest" reference resource for those who homeschool their kids, because Wikipedia is filled with falsehoods like, um, science.  And the original set of editors were kids being taught by Schafly.

This fits in with the fundy scheme of wrapping kids in a cocoon from K-12 (homeschooling with "appropriate" online and text resources) through undergrad and graduate school (Liberty U, etc).  If you brainwash them for more or less the first three decades of life (assuming one completes a PhD at Liberty), I guess they figure they're good for jesus for life.

Date: 2008/07/29 12:14:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, walking from my girlfriend's flat, out towards the Royal Preserve that surrounds the palace at El Pardo (Madrid area), saw a short-toed eagle today.  Very cool.

But it was soaring overhead and I didn't see its short toes.  Oh well.

It was carrying something fairly large and furry in its mouth, and young rabbits are quite noticable in the area, I'm guessing less noticable by a count of one as of this morning.  Perhaps its toes are so short it has to carry it's prey in its mouth!

The edge of the suburb where my girlfriend lives, Las Rozas, has open fields and slightly shrubby grassland, good raptor country.  Common buzzard, hen harrier (why, oh why, have I only seen the species that exists back home in north america?), red kite, eurasian kestrel ...

While hiking along the glorified stream (they call it a river) that the palace of El Pardo was built on, I've seen large kettles of griffon and a couple of spanish imperial eagles.

And each once while talking my morning bird walk outside Las Rozas.  And the other morning, while walking through the central plaza right in town, happened to look up as a griffon soared right overhead about 50 meters up.  Startled me.

The dickey birds on these morning walks aren't particularly special for Europe, i.e. serin, melodious warbler, goldfinch, house-but-never-spanish sparrow, crested lark, red-legged partridge, wood pigeon (never in the woods, though, except in the botanical garden next to El Prado, not to be confused with El Pardo), several other species I'm forgetting at the moment.  Oh, black redstart, that's a nice bird.

Not bad birding for 10km morning walks in a suburb in sight of downtown Madrid.

Date: 2008/07/31 05:28:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
Wedge-tailed eagles are cool, one of the dozen or so raptors on my oz list from my three week visit there.  The Oz Aquila, closely related to the northern hemisphere's golden eagles and the (spanish or otherwise) imperial eagles of europe.

This was my favorite Australian raptor, though ...

Not sure where you are in Australia, but the parrot diversity is great.  I remember leaving the airport at Cairns, driving toward a place we were staying on the edge of a state forest as a base for a week of birding (cassowary male with chick on one of the dirt logging roads, how cool is that?).  We passed a very large plowed field full of white birds that back home, in winter, might've been mew gulls or the like.  Sulphur-crested cockatoos, a thousand or so of them, more than I've *ever* seen in a pet store in North America! :)

Black cockatoo are cool, won't disagree with you on that score.

Lorries, parrots, cockatoos ... nice.

Date: 2008/07/31 05:40:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
I find it amusing there is only an English version of conservapedia.

Actually, you'll only find American there.  The fact that Wikipedia allows the use of English is one of the signs of its liberal bias.

(I am not making this up).

Date: 2008/07/31 07:55:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
Four out of five ain't bad for a red-stater ...

A quick peek at google reveals a startling number of "offical" websites for stuff.

Date: 2008/08/01 12:38:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
My neighbor has a lot of bird feeders in his backyard, and it resulted in periodic visits from a small hawk. I think it's a Cooper's.  Yesterday I got to see it grab a Goldfinch off of one of the feeders.

Or sharpshinned hawk, which are considerably smaller.  They're easy to distinguish once you know how but ...

Cooper's hawk have much more robust legs.  The sharpshinned hawk gets its name from a prominent ridge on its "shin" (metatarsal), which gives it a bit more fore-and-aft rigidity, otherwise its legs are glorified toothpicks.

Cooper's hawks also have blockier heads due to longer feathers on the rear of the head, that they lift to make their head "look big" (and scary, I guess) when nervous/scared see here.

Sharpshinned hawks are more heavily streaked (though there's a great deal of variation in Cooper's hawks - I've banded literally thousands of north american accipiters).

If you've got a kid - a brown-backed bird with brown streaking on the breast - the plumage is going to be grown in and fresh (migration cometh soon).  A Cooper's hawk will show a distinct white terminal band.  A sharpshinned will normally show a greyish terminal band though quite white (but narrow) is not totally unknown.

With an adult bird at this time of year, it's hard to tell, their tail will be molting enthusiastically and the old feather that haven't dropped yet beat to shit (i.e. any white band likely to be worn off).  Sharpies are farther along in molt than Coops at this point (it's a size thing, male sharpies, the smallest, will be very far along now in august).

Far too much data, right?

Go find that hawk and look again!

Date: 2008/08/01 14:20:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
which one tastes the best?

The chicken hawk, of course.

That's the cooper's hawk, honest!  Cooper's hawks have a fascination with pigeon-sized and chicken-sized birds that has to be seen to believed.  If one shows up outside a locked coop (nice pun) made of chicken wire so the birds are visible, a Coop will sit and stare forever.  And try to figure out how to get in.  "mmm ... all that food ... if I only had a brain I could figure out that door-like contraption and eat for hours!".

Jim - crow-sized+ points to not only Cooper's hawk, but a female one (they're larger than the males, in the western US typically 450-550 grams weight, eastern US a bit heavier).  And that broad band, yes, Coop.  A kid, I imagine (brown not grey-brown), if it's that obvious - an adult female, esp. one that laid this year, would be looking pretty ragged in the tail by now I should think (they start dropping flight feathers after they lay, males get an earlier start and their smaller feathers grow in faster, too).

So drop the "he" bit :)   Believe me, it's the female Cooper's hawk that has the mentality of an NFL linebacker, they're amazing - the boys are chickenshit chicken hawks by contrast.

Date: 2008/08/02 02:06:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
A Cooper's hawk figured out how to get into our pigeon/quail house

Nice big 'ole adult coop photo there.  You can see she's (I think) molting one or more inner primaries.

Where I've banded most frequently, in Nevada, our pigeon/dove/starling coops are Coop- and Gos-proof.  It took us years, though, to figure out how to thwart ...


(not for the faint of heart ...)

Problems with them digging under pigeon coops - ours tend to be about 8 feet high and first attempts were just on the ground, skunks would get in, and it would be like a dog in a herd of sheep.

Then we tried chicken-wire flooring to keep them out, one dug under and left us with some legless pigeons (even with plenty of things to roost on, there will always be a few that prefer to roost on the ground, hey, they're domesticated, you expect smart?)

Anyway, we finally figured it out.  And now the skunks no longer hang out around our camp, which is too bad, because we no longer have skunk stories to share.  Like the time our cook fell half-asleep in our central tent, in the rocking chair I used to carry up there, in front of the wood stove on a cold october night at 9,000 feet in the Great Basin ... stroking the back of the cat that was rubbing up against her leg ... wait ... cat?  There ain't no cats in field camp!  SCREAMING "oh my god I've been petting a skunk!" ... poor skunk, just wanted a little lovin'!


Also, I get the impression that Cooper's Hawks are more common than Sharp-Shinned Hawks, and much more adapted to heavily built up, residential neighborhoods. I see Cooper's Hawks around town here pretty routinely, but I've never seen a Sharp-Shinned anywhere except out in the countryside.

Depends on where you live, really.  Sharp-shinneds are common around feeders in new england in winter.  Where I live (portland, oregon) both are common in winter.  Only coops nest here in the city, though, and are  doing so with increasing frequency over the last couple of decades (true throughout the willamette valley).

Coops nest throughout the lower 48 and southern Canada, while the sharpies range extends much further north and they don't nest in the more southern parts of the US.  So depending on where you live, and the time of year, you may be much more likely to see a Coop than a sharpie.

While plenty of Coops and sharpies winter in the US, most of our band returns from eastern Nevada are from Sinaloa and Sonora, probably due to our banding site being east and south of where most Coops and sharpies migrating to winter in western OR/WA/CA are headed.  And a lot of our wintering sharpies are just coming down from the Cascades, like many of the yellow-rumped warblers and other small birds they like to prey on.

Date: 2008/08/04 11:45:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Shit, we need a mole at PNAS ... I hope no one chokes to death on their coffee when they read the contents and break out into uncontrollable hysterics.

Date: 2008/08/06 03:24:17, Link
Author: dhogaza
your critique is like copy-pasta from talkorigin...

Constant is obviously a fundamentalist of the flying spaghetti monster flavor ...

Date: 2008/08/08 16:26:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
As I understand it, kestrels are more likely to eat small mammals (mice, voles) and large insects (grasshoppers, dragonflies) than small birds

You'll see them frequently hover-hunt over open fields, looking for voles and/or bugs.  They'll take birds, too, but very small ones.  Though, one year while banding hawks, with a trainee on the large (pigeon) lure, a kestrel came into the station and the trainee was so excited I couldn't get her to stop moving the pigeon around.  Usually we immediately work on them with a house sparrow, before they get a good look around and see all the station hardware which tends to freak them out, causing them to perch on a mistnet pole or the like, giving alarm calls.  And looking with suspicion into the blind.

On this occasion I finally got the trainee to park her pigeon in small hideaway built of rocks for just that purpose.  The female kestrel walked into the little hideaway and jumped on the pigeon's back.  The trainee dragged the pigeon and tiny kestrel (outweighed by the pigeon something like 6:1) into the bownet and caught it.

That was one optimistic kestrel.

But usually birds sorta freak them out unless they're very tiny.  Kestrels, like all falcons, have relatively tiny and weak feet (compared to hawks and eagles of comparable size) so they grab prey and kill vertebrates by severing the spinal cord in the neck (their bills have a notch in them, one of the morphological characteristics differentiating them from hawks).

Date: 2008/08/08 16:30:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
Beautiful blue tit photo above, nice job (and I speak as someone who's sold a fair number of nature photos to the international book and magazine market).

Date: 2008/08/15 12:36:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Looks badly photoshopped, the mask (um "head") is an unsaturated greyish color, while the fur is saturated and dark.  Different lighting.

They've gotten themselves a fair amount of press attention, something tells me they're having a great laughing hoopla over it.

Date: 2008/08/15 12:39:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ahh, maybe publicity for the Shopping For Bigfoot online store is involved ...

Date: 2008/08/15 12:45:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Heh, that got snuck in on June 2nd ... hope they don't peek over here and find out about it.  Well done, indeed, Pepek2008!

Date: 2008/08/15 13:19:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
AP's lead paragraph on the story is great:

A hairy corpse crammed in a Georgia freezer is Bigfoot, say two men who have been tracking the legendary creature, when they aren't busy looking for leprechauns and the Loch Ness monster...

Treats them with the seriousness they deserve, I'd say.

Date: 2008/08/15 18:54:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
It all about, ‘We have unnamed scientists working at an undisclosed location under armed guard.’”

I say, is that a description of the big foot "science" or the intelligent design "lab"?

You're suggesting the intelligent design lab is located in a secure facility for the criminally insane?

Date: 2008/08/17 15:36:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
On August 9, 1945 the US dropped an atomic bomb on Nagasaki, Japan.  That totally exhausted the US nuclear capabilities at the time.  There were no more atomic bombs.

Not exactly, there were several cores along with initiators and high-explosive shells available.  They required hand-assembly but could be delivered with a few days' notice.

Much of what you ascribe to Rickover applies equally well to the Manhattan Project.  The Project, under Groves, pursued multiple methods of separating U235 and U238, building as research progressed.  Has more to do with being willing to optimize for time rather than money rather than any particularly enlightening insight into the management of large-scale engineering and research projects.  Everything that was done, though, was based on sound engineering and sound science, with the pace of engineering and construction paced as closely as possible to the research.

Rickover's Nautilus was an engineering project, no real research was necessary.  The Manhattan Project had led to the construction of working reactors for the production of plutonium.  A variety of reactor designs fell out from the Project.  The engineering problem was to fit one into the hull of a submarine, to make operation reliable under sea (and undersea) conditions, under the control of naval enlisted men and officers, etc etc etc.   And most of that problem was solved by Westinghouse, who was contracted to design and build the reactor ...

Date: 2008/08/17 19:16:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
I thought it was weeks if not months.

As I said, the components were available, but each needed to be hand built.  Enough for a *few* bombs (half-dozenish).
The only excuse for Nagasaki was to bluff the Japanese into believing we would mercilessly bomb a city a week until they surrendered unconditionally.

Bombing an unpopulated area would have demonstrated Hiroshima wasn't a fluke.

I would rather Nagasaki to have been a desperate bluff than to have been heartlessness on our part.

The real target of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was arguably Stalin.  We knew the Japanese were folding, indeed most of the military brass (most staunch political conservatives) who knew of the bomb opposed its use, saying it wasn't necessary, Japan would fold within weeks regardless.

And Eisenhower repeated that belief and said he'd learned nothing to change his mind, in 1961, in a public speech, after his Presidency.

Personally I believe that if FDR had lived, neither bombing would've taken place.

But who knows...

Date: 2008/08/18 19:52:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
I understand that Curtis LeMay once commented that he was certain that if we had lost the war, he woul dhavce been executed for war crimes (he was the guy behind the fire-bombing of civilians).

Yes, you're correct.  Of course, the context was one of being unsupportive of trying military people for war crimes.  He saw nothing wrong with the firebombing of Japan - or Coventry.

Strangely, LeMay was one of those who didn't feel that Hiroshima and Nagasaki was necessary, but I suspect the overshadowing of his firebombing campaign may've had something to do with it.

After all, Hiroshima hadn't been bombed because it didn't meet even LeMay's minimal standards for "military importance".  That's how thorough the campaign had been.  A thoroughly firebombed city was of no interest to the a-bomb targeting team, they wanted something intact so they could more accurately measure its destructiveness.

Date: 2008/08/18 20:01:26, Link
Author: dhogaza
Hiroshima was somewhat defendable (our lack of confidence the bomb would work and pay back for Pearl Harbor).

There was near-total confidence that the uranium gun would work, so much confidence that they didn't bother testing it.  They built one, moved on to the plutonium implosion design.

As for justifying it as payback, having burned over 200,000 Japanese civilians to death in Tokyo alone was more than sufficient to balance the books over about 3,500 military dead and the handful of ships permanently lost, don't you think?

In the Pearl Harbor raid, the Japanese Navy was fastidious in targeting our armed forces only (I'm well aware that such fastidiousness wasn't typical of the Army, but then again, they weren't involved).  Can't say that about the Home Team after LeMay got involved.

Heck, most of those BBs were raised and shelled the hell out of Japanese-held islands in preparation for invasion.  My guess is that these resurrected ships themselves killed more Japanese than our deaths in the Pearl Harbor raid ...

Date: 2008/08/21 14:08:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
It was just a joke that got out of hand!

They blame the victims:

Dyer, asked if ever thought that the hoopla had become more than just a joke, implied that everyone should have known it was a hoax.

"Well, we told 10 different stories," he said. "Everyone knew we were lying."

Actually, he's got a point ...

Date: 2008/08/23 16:37:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, given that kids are presented with a decision like this to make, what do you expect?

Date: 2008/08/26 20:20:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Heywaitaminnit. Random numbers .ne. random text. Winzip cheeted. Or cheeto'd. Or something.

Even worse, they're not random BYTES.  You need a file filled up with bytes which randomly contain the values 0-255, not random values from the subsite 0 through 9 plus newline.

Try your zip on a JPEG, for instance.

Date: 2008/09/13 18:45:59, Link
Author: dhogaza
Best comment on the talk page:

There is no censorship on Conservapedia.

Date: 2008/09/27 15:46:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
A lot of scandanavians settled along the pacific northwest coast, working as fishermen and loggers (depending on season), and the SW Alaska economy is based on the same.  Not sure if they settled in numbers in BC, would depend in part on immigration policy back in the late 1800s early 1900s.  There's a "Sons of Norway" lodge south of Astoria, OR for instance, prominently visible off the coast highway.

You can hear that sort of sing-songish lilting style of speech in Seattle's Ballard neighborhood ...

"I'M glad *I* live IN BalLARD."

If I did and were of scandanavian descent, that is.

Date: 2008/10/11 13:28:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
And in other news - I got to give McCain at least a

little credit.

Not really.  His denunciation of the extreme rhetoric didn't come until *after* some prominent Republican ex-McCain supporters went public with their disgust at his campaign's pandering to the worst of the base.  One went so far as to suggest that McCain was, essentially, endangering Obama's personal safety.

Date: 2008/10/25 16:56:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
The Olive Fruit Fly has infested thousands of California olive groves...

Research that helps blue states does not promote the public good.

I'm sure she'd have no problem with an earmark for agency research into resource issues that affect red states like Alaska.  Such as research into the mating habits of crabs by the state fisheries people that she asked Senator Stevens to help fund in her role as Governor.

I'm sure that Heddle is aware that applied research at agencies such like the USF&W, USDA, USFS comes directly from their research budgets, which are approved by Congress, not through grant applications.  So nothing has been "bypassed" in the process.

Date: 2008/11/06 15:32:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Regarding Palin's request to speak in Arizona.  This was strange for a couple of different reasons, and speaks again to her ignorance of the world beyond the borders of Wasilla.  Add ignorance of election night tradition to the list.

She wanted to give her concession speech *before* McCain, not after.  In other words, to be the person making the concession official.  To steal the spotlight from McCain.  That's just bizarre.  I suspect this might be the first time a losing VP candidate made such a request since they started running on a unified ticket (once upon a time VPs ran, and were voted for, separately).

Secondly, VP candidates rarely if ever have given acceptance or concession  speeches.  In this case, it's pretty obvious that Palin's desire to do so was motivated by a desire to clamber over McCain's dead body and kickstart that "Palin 2012!" crap.  Before the body was cold.

Apparently she showed up with written notes for her prepared speech, and that was when she was told "no, you're not going to speak".

Earth to Sarah - if they'd wanted you to speak, they would've told you themselves.  It's McCain's gig, not yours.

Note how all Biden did in Chicago was to walk on stage with his wife and wave to the crowd after the acceptance speech, sharing the stage with Obama and his family.  A nice group wave and then off they went into the night.

That's the tradition, for winners and losers.

Date: 2009/01/20 11:41:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
Even tho he hasn't taken the oath yet, it's past 12 noon DC time, Obama legally is now president

Actually, Biden, already sworn in, was acting president during the gap.

Didn't do much with his few minutes of fame, did he? :)

Date: 2009/01/30 13:29:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
black-backed woodpecker's a nice sighting, where are you at?  Obviously some place with (at least some dead) coniferous trees, let's see grey jays ... might be mountain, not black-capped, chickadees.  In the places here in the PNW where I'd see grey jays and black-backed or three-toed 'peckers it would almost certainly be mountain...

Date: 2009/01/30 18:49:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
We are in the coniferous forest region and, although some has been logged, most is in a fairly natural condition with quite a few dead trees, especially in old burn areas.

Yeah, that's stereotypical black-backed 'pecker habitat.

Mountain chickadee ain't it if you're living up there in Manitoba, boreal is one that's not on my list ...

Date: 2009/02/01 16:33:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
IMO, there are 2 infinities, big and small.
One infinity big is composed of an infinite
number of infinity smalls.

Zero needs to read about this guy, who didn't piddle around with merely two infinities ...

Date: 2009/02/23 15:35:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Did anyone else notice the slope?

2.5 +/- 5.0

As I'm sure most here know, global warming denialists routinely argue against the validity of the arctic sea ice extent data, with shows a statistically significant declining trend.

But they're happy to tout the validity of the antarctic sea ice extent data, which is generated by the same teams (NSIDC being a prominent one), but shows no statistically significant trend.

Dave's not making these brilliant observations without cut-'n-paste help...

Date: 2009/03/28 11:42:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
They should consider putting in an application to fry donuts at the local Tim Horton’s instead

Tim Horton's and O'Leary.  Add poutine and you have the trifecta of things to avoid when visiting Canada ...

Date: 2009/04/03 18:37:34, Link
Author: dhogaza
If the shit ever hits the fan big enough at Oak Ridge maybe I'll come be an Apache.

That's magic country ... the chiricahuas, dos cabezas, huachucas, animas ...

Date: 2009/04/04 15:22:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
Step up to a 500mm lens, and Nikon offers an f/4 with image stabilization for $8,100.

Nearly two decades ago, when I made the decision to upgrade from my old Minolta system to one offering a 600/4 for bird photography, I had my heart set on buying a Nikon system.

Then I priced out a full system and was staggered by the price differential for long lenses.  Canon was noticably cheaper *and* had fully integrated auto-focus.

Still true today - Canon's 500/4 with image stabilization is about $6K, enough cheaper than the Nikon price quoted above for one to toss in an additional 300/4 image stabilized lens, a 1.4x teleextender, and an extension tube for close focusing (500mm lenses typically only focus down to 5m, for songbirds it's nice to be able to focus a bit closer).

And, no, you're not going to lose quality.  Even Art Wolfe is shooting Canon these days (when did *that* happen?).

Not trying to start a brand war here - both Nikon and Canon are great, and Nikon offers the advantage of there being a huge pool of manual focus lenses available that will at least mount on modern bodies (autofocus is pretty meaningless for extreme wide-angle, or macro, lenses, though macro lenses generally are excellent for all-around use where AF will be more greatly appreciated).

For wildlife shooting I highly favor APS-sized sensors.  I've just upgraded from Canon's 20D to the 50D, but even the 8MP 20D allowed me to make extremely sharp and salable 14x20 prints.  Modern scaling algorithms used in PhotoShop along with a subtle bit of sharpening can yield some extremely impressive results.  Publishers tend to want more megapixels, but gladly accept uprez'd images from my 20D.

Question for Wes: when you did your resolution analysis for the same number of pixels on APC vs. full-frame, did you take into account resolution falloff at the edges?  One advantage of APC is that you're cutting out the sharper, center portion of the image circle when you use it with a lens designed for a full 35mm frame.

Anyway, I'd venture that in the field, any resolution difference due to sensor size when shooting wildlife with a long lens isn't worth worrying about.

One nice thing about digital is that the modern bodies perform extremely well at ISO 200, better than something like Sensia pushed to 200 (well, at least at the time I tried it - is Fuji still investing in improving their film?  I doubt it).

For those of us who grew up shooting Fuji Velvia at ISO 40 in order to give magazine editors the saturation and pallette they wanted (though in later years I found they loved Kodak 100SW, and I really loved that extra stop), decent performance at reasonable speeds like ISO 200 combined with image stabilization can make the difference between chasing stuff with a heavy, awkward tripod or skating around blithely with a nice, easily-handled monopod.

With APC sensor bodies, a 500/4 is adequate for bird photography, especially if you invest in a same-manufacturer 1.4x teleextender.  I bought my 600/4 back in the film days (and am looking to sell it, without much luck, thus far) but a 500/4 on an APC body is equivalent in field of view to an 800/4 on a film body.  Nice.

A 500/4 is noticably lighter than a 600/4 (Canon's is 8.5 lbs vs. 11.8 lbs) and cheaper.

I think it's true that Nikon still beats out Canon at the wide end, though Canon's high-end wide-angle zooms have greatly improved in the last decade.

I second Wes's endorsement of 80-200/2.8 lenses.

I've also been in love with my Canon 28-70/2.8 (now offered as a 24-70 2.8) for many, many years now.  Blindingly sharp.  So sharp, actually, that a manufacturer of a system to print digital images on photo paper (similar to the chromera system) selected one of my images shot with that lens to show off the level of fine detail and fine color rendition their printing system can deliver.  I'm old enough that I remember the days when zooms of any length were a real compromise regarding image quality.  Not so with today's better ones - however, they're expensive.

Hmm ... well, here's the image the printer manufacturer chose ... Canon 1N, Fuji Velvia, EF 28-70/2.8L at roughly 50mm, tripod, mirror lockup, and Monterey Bay giving me a nice neutral background for this pretty guy sitting on the railing of the Monterey Pier.

Date: 2009/04/05 15:18:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
I know that I could be getting  better resolution than my current camera offers by dropping $3,700 on a D700, $4,500 on a D3, or >$8,000 on a D3x, but given those are impossible numbers on my budget, I certainly don't worry about using APS-C sized sensors instead.

And all this assumes you can fill the frame in the first place, while the truth is that a bird ain't necessarily going to let me get closer just because I'm using an $8K full-frame sensor body rather than my $1050 50D.  What I find is that I use my 1.4x extender a lot less often than I did shooting with a full-frame sensor (umm ... film).

And the film body didn't do 20 FPS HDTV, either.

I just gave away the last of my 35mm film, 27 rolls of B&W, about 75 rolls of chrome, to people happy to be living in the film age.

Date: 2009/04/22 11:23:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
They're admitting it's about the rhetoric and not the data?

He's a lawyer ...

Date: 2009/04/25 19:28:32, Link
Author: dhogaza
He should be!  After all, he's single-handedly overturned an entire field of science - evolutionary biology - and has gotten no recognition in return!

Date: 2009/04/26 16:38:34, Link
Author: dhogaza
Guess which Expelled "victim" of "Darwinist authoritarianism" is seeking additional martyrdom by becoming a vocal climate science denialist?

Date: 2009/04/27 11:02:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
I don't think Gonzalez is doing anything with climate, he's looking for the beginning of the next sunspot cycle, which is late coming.

You need to understand the context and misinformation campaign behind the "solar minimum" implications being touted by denialists.

Roughly, it's that changes in solar irradiance, not CO2, have caused recent warming, while current "cooling" (non-existent statistically) is being caused by the current solar minimum.

The argument ignores the inherent noisiness of climate, the need to look at 30-yearish trends, and the fact that there's no known physical mechanism by which minor changes in solar output could cause the recent warming trend.  And, if there were such a mechanism, you'd then have to explain why previous fluctuations match the known mechanisms - presumably some sky fairy changed physics just about the same time that we began burning huge amounts of fossil fuel.

I think that publishing a guest post supporting the "solar minimum" notion (interpreted by many in the denialsphere as proof we're at risk of a new Little Ice Age and therefore should continue to emit as much CO2 as possible), on one of the most notorious global warming denialist blogs on the web, is pretty good evidence that Gonzales shares the blog owner's view.

Date: 2009/04/27 18:23:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
If I die tonight, the most urgent thing I want to say is this: Putting animals on the same plane as humans not only disses humans but dooms animals.

Hmmm ... I wonder what she thinks of the idea of putting them on the same Ark as humans?

Date: 2009/04/28 13:20:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
I hope we're not heading for another Maunder Minimum, which was a long period with no sunspots back in the 17th century.  The Maunder Minimum also coincided with the "little ice age".  If we are getting another one, it will certainly put the dampers on global warming - for a while.

At most it would add up to a "Little Normal Age".  However, you're right, it would mask warming due to CO2 forcing and related feedbacks to some degree.

Unfortunately, when the sun returns to its normal output and the more powerful sunlight hits the earth which will have much more CO2 in its atmosphere by then, we'll get global warming on steroids.

There's a real political risk involved, as it might be more difficult to muster action to reduce the amount of CO2 we're pouring into the atmosphere.  The denialsphere is beside itself with joy at the prospect of a solar minimum as they're sure they can convince people that CO2-forced warming is a "fraud" and forestall action if it comes to be.

I wouldn't bet on an extensive solar minimum sufficient to totally cancel out CO2-forced warming, though.

And as mentioned above ... acidification of the oceans is potentially as large a problem as warming itself, given how many people depend on the oceans for sustinence.

Date: 2009/05/12 11:28:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
cheet grass (an invasive species)

Cheat grass - so named because bad guys would sneak the seeds in with whatever seedy/grainy thingy they were selling therefore cheating the purchaser.  Apparently that's how it got there.

Very bad stuff, BTW.  Has totally changed the fire ecology in western rangelands.  It grows quickly and browns early, leading to earlier and hotter fires in areas where it grows thickly (which is almost everywhere it shows up).

Date: 2009/05/14 12:55:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Google scholar has Gordon's MSc thesis from the University of West Indies as "A thirty-two channel integrated voice and data multiplexer."

This explains why his posts read as though he's channeling thirty-two different voices and integrating them multiplexed with a random word generator into the single stream-of-conciousness blather he's famous for.

Date: 2009/05/15 12:10:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
As I stated in my first response, ribonucleotides are not RNA. Ribonucleotides represent individual letters, but RNA also embodies such concepts as “words”, “spelling”, and “grammar”, all of which imply intelligent agency. By way of illustration, certain English letters, such as I, O, even W, can be observed in nature, but we have yet to observe the rules of English grammer in nature.

I'm in awe of C Bass, the author of this gem.

Date: 2009/05/28 14:28:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
I'm saving my pennies for something a bit longer, in the 300-400mm range.

The image stabilized 300/4 is a good choice.  I dumped my (non-IS) 300/2.8 and will buy the lighter IS f4 job.  It becomes an excellent 420/5.6 with a 1.4x extender.  Since modern digital bodies are so good at reasonable speeds like ISO 200, 250, even 400 - far better than say Sensia pushed a stop, much less two - and since image stabilization gets you a couple more working stops, I don't mind dropping from f2.8 to f4 (not to mention losing about 4 lbs in lens weight).

Canon's 400/5.6 isn't image stabilized so I think the 300/4 IS is a better choice.  Especially with an APS sensor camera, where the image circle is cropped to the smaller format, you'd be unlikely to see a difference with Canon's 1.4x extender vs. the 400/5.6.  Tamron's 1.4x isn't bad, either (I own both, Canon's has a "snout" that sticks up the rear of a telephoto and won't work with lenses with a flush rear element like my old 80-200/2.8).

OK, wildlife ...

Here's a photo I took last weekend of the 3rd glossy ibis ever recorded in Oregon (behind it is a white-faced ibis, common here).  The bird nerds are all atwitter over it:

Date: 2009/06/04 19:31:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
As gracious as Upright Biped.

As flexible as StephenB.

As modest as Joe G.

As well-read as Behe.

(my, that's a sweet Dover memory)

Date: 2009/06/18 14:12:01, Link
Author: dhogaza
OK, skunk story, you've asked for it ...

So for many years I used to spend a month or two or more trapping and banding hawks, and doing migration counts, at sites in Utah and Nevada.  Mostly at 9,000 feet on a beautiful mountain in Nevada, backpacking situation, though with beginning-of-the-year helicopter logistical support (water, food, etc).

I'd always bring an old rocking chair to provide a more comfortable alternative to the plain wooden benches in our communal mess/office/equipment repair/hangout tent.  An old army surplus command post tent.

Anyway ... one year, we had a skunk hanging out most nights, enjoying the companionship, warmth from the pot-bellied stove (9,000 feet in the Great Basin in September/October often means temps cold enough to freeze your water bottle by morning), and I suppose in hopes of crumbs of food on the dirt floor.

One evening, our cook, exhausted from a day that had started at 6:00 AM cooking breakfast, was relaxing by the pot-bellied stove gently rocking in my rocking chair, half-asleep, as the rest of us talked etc.

The skunk came up ... began rubbing her leg, like a cat ... the rest of us  watched intently ... the cook, eyes closed, began petting the skunk, rocking gently ... petting ... skunk rubbing her leg with its body ... petting ... then ... suddenly.


She realized what she was petting.

She leapt out of the chair to the far side of the tent ... the skunk scurried from the tent full-speed ... the rest of us laughed our ass off.

Date: 2009/06/18 14:15:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
I was afraid my cat would go at them, but, though he watched with curiosity, he stayed well away.

BTW, don't try this with a dog.  Dogs are dumb, and skunks are freaked out by them.  If you ignore this advice, lay in a nice supply of tomato juice, you'll need it :)

Date: 2009/06/25 19:17:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
He wrote a letter to the editor.

Kairofocus?  I'm sure it was more like writing a sunday edition to the editor ...

Date: 2009/06/26 00:10:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
Gordon produces highest quality tard in the Answers for Judge Jones thread

Huh, typically you'd want this thread started, completed, summarized, and ready to enter as evidence *before* the trial, not years later.

Of course, by waiting until years after the trial, you can claim victory without actually having to submit to judicial scrutiny.

Date: 2009/07/01 10:17:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
For those of you interested in the EPA suppression of opposing views baloney, it turns out that Our Martyr plagiarized much of it from a RWingnut denialist site run by Pat Michaels

Pure cut-and-paste, without attribution.

The history appears to be that

1. he wasn't part of the team working on the EPA summary, as he's an economist and not involved in any way in working on climate science issues.

2. he begged his boss to be allowed to write a "rebuttal" on EPA time.

3. his boss agreed

4. Carlin cobbled together roughly 90 pages of cut-and-paste standard denialist tripe from the web, without attribution.

5. despite "suppression" claims, his opus was forwarded to the various teams working on various bits of the official EPA document, his claims looked at, and (of course) ignored because they're totally unscientific

6. his boss got upset with him because, among other things, apparently the database project Carlin was supposed to be working on was coming in late, despite promises that it would be done on time (sounds as though this were a condition of being allowed to work on his "rebuttal" report, speculation on my part, from reading 'tween the lines of the published stream of e-mail).

7. It's unclear who sent the story to the CEI, though Carlin claims it's not him.  You'd think being outed as plagiarizing scum would cause him to shy from the limelight a bit, but he's already been interviewed on Fox (duh) and appears to be embracing his role as Martyr-In-Chief with enthusiasm.

8. Senator Inhofe (who else) is launching an investigation

9. All this broke two days before the House vote on the cap-and-trade bill.  The CEI is monkeywrenching, plain and simple.

Date: 2009/07/06 11:55:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
He informs me that a disturbing number of creationists infest NASA.

Same is true of the US Forest Service old guard, at least those in timber production and engineering.  A friend's boss for some time was an insufferable bible-thumper who, true to form, was busily humping his secretary despite being bound in Holy Matrimony at the time.
He posted that on July 5th, in the afternoon.  And, coinkydink of coinkydinks, what was the NASA Astronomy Picture of the Day for July 5th?

And the incident was widely publicized at the time, including, shortly thereafter, that the cause was due to a sensor being mounted upside-down.  It didn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.  I remember it well.

Date: 2009/10/08 19:38:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
The US is really turning into 2 nations isn't it. The Barrys and Clives of your country have their own history, science, TV channels, web sites etc.

Not to mention that they'll soon have their own Bible ...

A couple of favorites ...

First Example - Liberal Falsehood

The earliest, most authentic manuscripts lack this verse set forth at Luke 23:34:[7]

Jesus said, "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."

Is this a liberal corruption of the original? This does not appear in any other Gospel, and the simple fact is that some of the persecutors of Jesus did know what they were doing. This quotation is a favorite of liberals but should not appear in a conservative Bible.


Third Example - Socialism

Socialistic terminology permeates English translations of the Bible, without justification. This improperly encourages the "social justice" movement among Christians.

For example, the conservative word "volunteer" is mentioned only once in the ESV, yet the socialistic word "comrade" is used three times, "laborer(s)" is used 13 times, "labored" 15 times, and "fellow" (as in "fellow worker") is used 55 times.

Date: 2009/10/26 18:53:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
...does a fine job placing the naturalist dogma in historical perspective as dogma. It is an easy and enjoyable read, even if its large-scale structure could have used a bit of tightening up to avoid some internal repetition.

Yeah, that internal repetition can be damned annoying.

Date: 2009/10/27 17:07:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
Further, because humans have no inherent dignity, their official worth shall be calculated in terms of their potential to provide a return on the money invested by the state. Thus, those between the ages of 0 – 15, and those over 40, are worth far less than those between the ages of 15 and 40.

Huh, it's marketing types working for business, not the state, that's determined those worth between 15-40 are the most valuable demographic ...

Date: 2009/11/17 11:27:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
Willets are more interesting in flight, and for those not in the know, it says its name (which is really "Will Willet!")

Here's a self-portrait of me in Costa Rica last week ... or at least I usually feel like a "lazy bear" (perezoso)

Date: 2009/11/20 20:30:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Scientists dealing with ambiguities or incomplete data should be open about the difficulties. Using words like "hide" in reference to data or trends is inviting attack. This shit will be quote mined until five minutes before coastal cities go under water.

It's an unfortunate choice of words, because the divergence problem in climate reconstructions based on dendro records is well known, and discussed in the literature by those involved, including the one informally using the word "hide" in reference to one graph in the paper they were discussing (or working on).  In other words, they *have* been open about the difficulties, and in fact the denialsphere wouldn't even know of the existence of the problem in some datasets if they *hadn't* been open about the difficulties.

Won't stop the fraud chorus, though.

Date: 2009/11/22 13:27:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
I take it you were just hanging out in Costa Rica?

Naw, that's a sloth just hanging out :)

I was visiting the technical institute of costa rica, in cartago (east of san jose) for a couple of days, and afterwards some colleagues and I headed off to the pacific coast and hung out and relaxed.

The colleagues are non-birders, so more swimming and hiking than birding or nature photography was on the agenda, but I didn't mind, particularly.  Bath-warm salt water in November feels pretty good to an Oregon boy like me ...

Costa Rica's nice, I've spent time in Guatemala, Mexico and Ecuador and while culturally Costa Rica's far less interesting (i.e. not much indigenous influence), I have to admit I enjoyed being in a latin american country where there's far less unescapable abject poverty than the other countries I've visited.  Very low violent crime rate, 98% literacy rate, no army, universal health care of reasonable quality, strong (though imperfect) efforts to conserve biological diversity, and the San Juan city police actually spent 15-20 minutes driving around the city trying to find a restaurant for us (which, as it turned out, didn't exist) because, as one told us, "I've been taught that the job of a policeman is to serve the people".

(OK, cops on the coast are known to shake down speeding tourists, pickpockets and other petty thieves rival Amsterdam for skill, there's too much timber and other poaching in the park system, the current government seems to favor development over protection of breeding marine turtle habitat, etc etc - it ain't nirvana)

Date: 2009/11/26 14:43:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
Short story: people are up in arms over an unused variable.

Oh, it's even better.  Briffa is one of the leading researchers into the magnitude of the "divergence problem" seen in some tree-ring series in far northern forests.  (the "divergence problem" is that the temperature signal seems to disappear from some tree ring chronologies in recent decades, and no one knows why, for sure).

So the offending (but commented-out) code was plotting the NH instrumental (thermometer) record vs. tree ring data vs. adjusted tree ring data.  I'm not entirely sure, but it appears to me that they were looking into what would happen if you adjusted the tree ring chronology to reflect observed divergence of the instrumental and tree ring data.

Something along those lines, the specifics aren't important.

What's important is that it's clear that the researchers were probing the data, which is exactly what researchers do.  Briffa published a couple of papers on the divergence paper that year (1998), and has done a lot more research into it afterwards.

Smoking gun!  Researchers poke at data to see what happens when you do!  The scandal!  The shock!

These guys are hopelessly dishonest assholes (the denialsphere, not the researchers)

Date: 2009/11/27 18:52:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
I second the Real Climate recommendation.  Gavin Schmidt, lead author of NASA GISS Model E, has very, very patiently been answering questions, some of which would be UD-worthy in their stupidity.

Date: 2009/12/08 18:20:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
I got caught up in the sequestration argument a couple days ago and couldn't locate a single source for the data, something with consistent units of measure, something that shows the carbon sequestered by all sinks in a way that can directly be compared to CO2 emissions.

Roughly half of our CO2 output disappears from the atmosphere, but mostly because currently the ocean is a sink, not due to increased growth of plant life.  As the ocean warms, eventually it will reach equilibrium with the atmosphere, and continued warming will cause it to become a source, not sink, of CO2.

I'm sure there's easily accessible information on the carbon cycle at Real Climate, along with the other sources already given by others.

Date: 2009/12/11 14:42:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
Here's some background material on the National Post.

Date: 2009/12/14 18:20:26, Link
Author: dhogaza
Qetzal ...

White nosed coati (Nasua narica) that was cruising the parking lot at Volcan Irazu, hoping to beg and/or steal something to eat.

Wow, that was probably one of the coatis we saw at Volcan Irazu.  When we were there, one of the little bastards darted into the little cafe/store there, jumped up and started eating someone's food (the someone went screaming in the opposite direction, it was really quite hilarious).

We were there November 3rd ... you weren't the clueless tourist feeding them, were you? (just kidding)

Date: 2009/12/15 16:43:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
I've sold a fair amount of photography in the book and magazine market, so hopefully know a bit about it so ...

Fixing white-balance after shooting is just fine.  It's what I do.  You can do it with JPEGs as well in programs like Photoshop Elements, The GIMP, etc.

The only problem is that JPEGs store 8 bits per channel (RGW), so if your color is far off, shifting to white can chop off the color space to an annoying extent.  Same with compensating for contrast, etc.

If you shoot RAW you can ignore manual white balance (and color saturation, sharpening and similar) controls because, well, they're ignored by the camera anyway.  RAW is what it says - the real bits from the sensor, untouched by in-camera software.

The idea behind these controls is to give you control over the image when it's converted in-camera to JPEG, in other words.  Your goal shooting JPEGs should be to make the final product be the one generated in-camera.

Now, if you're shooting RAW, with this particular camera you get 12 bits per channel rather than the 8 bits in JPEGs to play with, so you can do a lot of compensating for color, contrast, etc on your computer and still be left with a full 8 bits per channel to get shoved into JPEG output, or your monitor, or printer, etc.  And the dynamic range is great - the level of contrast you can capture then squish into the several stops that a printer can resolve is very high.  And if you totally blow an exposure (hard to do if you use autoexposure) your chances of extracting a usable image is very high.  I haven't tested the dynamic range of my 50D but I could pull out on the order of a dozen stops with my old 20D (contrast that with the 5 or so stops resolvable by Fuji Velvia slide film, or the 7 or so stops resolvable by traditional BW paper).  So if I underexpose by 7 stops, I can still extract 5 stops of information, leaving me with an image with about as much dynamic range as contrasty old Velvia (not that I'd ever forget to take the camera off manual or change exposure after shooting outdoors and stepping into a dark room to shoot something, naw, I'd never do that :)

The downside of RAW is that the image files are larger, and post-processing for printing etc is generally necessary as at minimum you'll want to mess with color saturation and add some sharpening (on the other hand I apply different degrees of sharpening - unsharp mask - for different images/print sizes, but then I'm probably a more critical printer than casual shooters are).

Date: 2009/12/15 18:32:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
Only if you are a masochist.

Oops, white color balance is applied to RAW images by Canon bodies.  But serious photographers I know clean up their images during post processing.  When shooting RAW, post processing is a given anyway.

The only time you can't correct properly is when there's a mix of light sources of different color temperature.  But that's true whether you're adjusting in-camera or during post-processing.  Remember that color balance correction doesn't affect the sensor - it's software correction applied to the bits generated by the sensor.  Doesn't matter if the software's running in the camera or on your computer.

Setting white balance with a white card is fine, of course, assuming that the light falling on the card is the same color temperature as the light falling on the subject.  That's often not the case when shooting wildlife.

Date: 2010/01/14 11:12:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Actually, Joe said one time that his injury in Iraq came when he was there demonstrating bomb detection equipment.

I see, after they asked him to unload the truck, he dropped it on his foot.

Date: 2010/02/02 14:25:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Some panel scientists feel the recent disclosures about unsubstantiated predictions of  the vanishing of Himalayan glaciers

Ugh, I guess I need to start getting used to that kind of misrepresentation from Revkin.

The Himalayan glacier error was made by working group II, which deals with impacts of climate change, not climate science per se.  The science summary is done by working group I, and their report didn't mention the poorly-resourced WWF report cited by WGII.

Which is why the bogus 2035 number didn't make it into the Summary for Policy Makers.  The wording on glaciers for the SPM was vetted by the glaciologists of WGI.

There are no "unsubstantiated predictions" in the physical science chapter of AR4, nor in the SPM, and it's the SPM that's most used.  WG II cited a report that contained an error.  The error was spotted, but not reported directly to the editor of that portion of WG II, but to an intermediary and apparently never got forwarded on.

Date: 2010/03/10 14:43:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Plus, I'd feel silly if I stood aside and let the religious antievolutionists take over and large-scale nuclear exchange did not happen.

Sounds oddly like Pascal's wager ...

Date: 2010/03/17 17:52:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sanibel Island and the Ding Darling National Wildlife Refuge, just west of Ft. Myers. One of the best birding places on the planet. Don't miss it.

Don't forget the various beaches on Sanibel, there are usually lots of shorebirds (waders to some of you) and due to the continual presence of people, they're not skittish and quite easy to photograph with even a moderate telephoto (my first trip there was with a 400/5.6).

This white ibis shot was taken from one of the beaches, for instance

Date: 2010/03/17 17:58:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
Let me just drop that image inline and force y'all to take a gander ... composition could be better, I was a newbie at that point and all excited.

Date: 2010/03/17 18:10:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
More from the area ... this reddish egret hanging out in a salt water lagoon was reported to me while I was down in the everglades.

Three days later, it was still there, in the same place.  Unfortunately, the lagoon is in a portion of Ft. Meyers Beach which is unaccessible unless you're staying at one of the hotels on the beach.   Strangely, I wasn't, and I still got out there to photograph.  Don't tell anyone, not sure the statute of limitations has expired yet :)

This guy was so used to people that it wouldn't strike a pose.  I was out in the lagoon up to my knees with tripod and 600/4, and finally resorted to kicking salt water at it to get it to pay attention to me!

Date: 2010/05/21 16:36:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Leucistic or into painting using its tail as a brush ...

Any open cans of white paint around? :)

Khan, leucistic birds are actually quite common ... this is a good opportunity to hone your bird id skills using size, shape, habits, etc.

Date: 2010/05/22 16:33:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
Interesting note from the Cornell:

occasionally a bird will lose feathers in a close call with a predator. When this happens the new feathers sometimes grow in white and then change back to the normal color at the next regular molt. This kind of white coloring looks like leucism but is not.

Interesting ... I was triggered to look by doubting that the cause of apparent partial (pied) leucism is always genetic (i.e. "is it a mutant?"), just because it seems reasonable that physical damage could harm follicles and sometimes lead to a lack of melanin.

Hmmm I guess it's accurate to say that all true leucism is genetic (Cornell says so), but not all birds possessing some unusual white feathers are truly leucistic.

BTW, perhaps the most beautiful red-tail I've seen in the hand was a "pale leucistic" (overall off-white rather than splotches of white intermixed with normal plumage) one.   It was the color of milk with a few drops of coffee ... a very pale off-white hinting brown.

So now, after identifying the species, our poster needs to follow the bird around until it molts to see if they come back colored or white! :)

Date: 2010/06/12 18:22:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
After watching most of the game I now know why soccer(football) fans are drunks.

Not to mention the English goalkeeper ...

Date: 2010/06/12 18:23:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
And earlier today, speaking to a friend who was reading about the history of the game ...

Mathchick: "I never realized how much football (soccer) rules are tied up with Victorian terror of masturbation"

Dhogaza: "that's why they can't use their hands?"

Date: 2010/06/15 15:33:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
you should also remember that the game was changed in the early part of the 20th century because it killed too many people with the manner it was played back then.

They only did it because President Teddy Roosevelt threatened to outlaw the game if it weren't made safer.

Date: 2010/06/15 18:22:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
Also, American Football is actually a Canadian import ...

Date: 2010/06/16 17:06:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
then enwimpened: smaller field and an extra down.

The opposite, actually, the Canadian game is more open and tends to favor lighter, quicker linemen in particular.  

Unless by enwimpened you meant something like enfattened :)

Apparently the smaller field arose because Harvard didn't have a rugby field available when the game was first played here.

Date: 2010/06/16 17:13:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
LOL, Switzerland beats favourite Spain. Who'd've thunk?

Yeah!  El Pais first led with "Spain crashes against Switzerland".

About an hour ago they had a subhead saying something like "the 'selection' (national team) played for an hour like a team shooting blanks, and paid with anguish before the Swiss".  The story leads something like "an error of conception leaves spain in a state of anguish" - looks like the coach is going to be in for some heavy fire!

My prediction:

Rajoy of the rightish People's Party will say that the Socialist government is to blame, and that the PP will step up efforts to force Zapatero to call an early election.

If the team loses again, the coach will be burned at the stake in Madrid's Plaza Mayor.

Date: 2010/06/26 17:02:19, Link
Author: dhogaza
It's unreal, it's not just been during the tournament.

It's our Pearl Harbor complex.

Ah well, personally I'm happy that Ghana's made it to the last eight.

And there will be a good match tomorrow, Argentina vs. Mexico.

I won't bother watching the other Sunday game.  The outcome's pre-ordained.

Date: 2010/06/27 11:09:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
The result of the first game today was ... as I thought ... pre-ordained, and I didn't miss a thing not watching it.

Did England have Green in goal again, or is their other goalie even worse?

Oh, well, just wait 'til next year, you'll lose at the rugby world cup, too ...

Date: 2010/06/27 14:15:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
I think that every German goal was 1-1 on the keeper, that is the out-players fault, not the goalkeepers IMO.

Ah, well, not much that a goalie can do under those circumstances.

Meanwhile, Argentina's been awarded a goal with a player terribly offside.  Followed by a good goal due to a terrible misplay by a Mexican defender.

Good.  No need to watch the second half, Argentina will just play keepaway.

Date: 2010/06/27 16:31:27, Link
Author: dhogaza
So, IMHO, soccer will suck until they take care of this type of BS.

Oh, I don't know, the NBA survived Bill Laimbeer, whose flopping skills were far better than any soccer player I've seen.

But, yeah, they need to do more.  They do issue yellow cards when the referee sees it.   The basic problem is you have one ref trying to see the entire pitch.  A suggestion I've seen that I like - when they review video of a match, penalize the worst of the divers.

Date: 2010/06/28 13:10:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
...until the Cowboys choke in the playoffs.

Trust me, it won't take that long ...

I do suspect that the lack of distinct plays is a factor in why soccer hasn't caught on here.

Yes, true, after all the Super Bowl commercials are almost always better than the game ...

Date: 2010/06/30 16:53:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Now, if you want true horror, nothing beats using a Gluey Louie when a mouse population boom is on. First, a mouse gets stuck on the Gluey Louie. Then, the other mice figure out that there is another food source available. Gruesome. Tossing a Gluey Louie with just an assortment of feet and legs attached is entirely possible.

Coca Cola concentrate slowly accumulating and drying under a leaky soft drink vending machine works very well, too.  I speak from personal experience at a local science museum, many years ago.  Not an experience to repeat if you can avoid it.

Date: 2010/07/02 10:26:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
Did anybody suggest a webcam for under the drink machine rather than cleaning it up and fixing it?

In 1970?  Not likely :)

(I was in high school at the time, and no, I did not have to do the clean-up.  It did sorta take me off coke for a bit, though.)

Date: 2010/07/02 10:36:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
Brazil vs. The Netherlands reminds me of Behe testifying at Dover:


Date: 2010/07/03 14:31:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
Not suitable for work

And I bet interspecies sex is banned in the bible, too!

Date: 2010/07/04 13:27:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Only technically.  The ball has only glanced Melo.

Yeah, and barely made it in.  Possibly it might've without the change in direction.

Most importantly, though, Melo screened his goal keeper from the ball, preventing him from knocking or punching it away.  My guess is that the goal keeper won't be buying Melo beer anytime soon.

Date: 2010/07/04 13:30:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
Man, am I glad that I got out of Brazil a few weeks ago. I imagine that entire country is not going to be doing anything but discussing that game for a few months. Well, that and devising new and fiendish ways to torture and/or eliminate Dunga...

That reminds me ... I have brazilian and argentinian friends that need to be teased and tortured.  Soon!

Date: 2010/07/22 11:16:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Cheerleading has been downgraded by a Federal Judge and is now officially not a sport.

Unfortunately, this ruling came decades too late to save us from having W as President ...

Date: 2010/07/26 17:08:09, Link
Author: dhogaza
Around here there are always mass aggregations of egrets (snowy and cattle for the most part), black crowned night herons, and Swainson hawks that collect in the alfalfa fields.  After they clean off the bales of alfalfa following a cutting they flood irrigate the entire field which flushes scads of gophers and mice out into the open.  The birds seem to think it is buffet time.

Isolated irrigated alfalfa fields are the easiest places to find ferruginous hawk in the great basin of the US.

If there's a power line alongside a road next to it, add scads of red-tailed hawks.  Ferrug frequently hunt perched on the ground, and humans having added huge amounts of suitable poles and trees and the like to open spaces have benefitted red-tails (which typically perch-hunt) at the expense of ferruginous hawks.

If there's a nearby cliff, you'll get falcons and eagles nesting and joining the party while feeding their young.  

And at night, barn owls, often fairly large numbers.

Date: 2010/07/26 17:10:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Around here there are always mass aggregations of egrets (snowy and cattle for the most part), black crowned night herons, and Swainson hawks that collect in the alfalfa fields.

The reference to egrets congregating in fields reminds me of a most enjoyable experience near Cairns, Australia.  About a half mile distant from a road we were driving on there was a field, full of white birds which I assumed were probably egrets.

But, no.  Thousands of sulfur-crested cockatoos.  It was great ...

Date: 2010/08/01 19:42:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
That lightning shot's great, but he could improve the composition a bit by moving the bolt a bit to the right! :)

Date: 2010/12/26 12:11:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
I learned algebra in 9th grade.

Not that you need algebra to do multiplication or addition ... both of which appear to be beyond bornagain77's abilities.

And after two days, no one over there has pointed out his error.  I wonder why? :)

Date: 2010/12/26 14:33:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, I recently sold my old EF 300/2.8 non-stabilized lens and replaced it a few days ago with the EF 300/4 IS.

Advantages: about 1.1 kg vs. 3 kg.  Image stabilization.  I don't particularly miss the extra stop because I no longer shoot film, and my 50D at ISO 200 or even 400 is far, far better than pushing 100 speed slide film to 200 (forget 400).  It works very well with the 1.4 tele-extender, making it a 400/5.6.  My 50D has an APS format sensor, so compared to 35mm film 400/5.6 is equivalent to 560/5.6.

Smaller size makes it easier to put in my carry-on, too - traveling with large telephotos has become a real hassle in the modern version of torture called post-9/11 air travel.

(I still have my 600/4, of course ...)

I took it out xmas day to test the lens and familiarize myself with it.  Here are a couple of hand-held images taken at 1/160, ISO 400.  I think image stabilization works ...

In honor of Lou's pissed-off bird fetish, this guy looks a bit annoyed in comparison to the first:

Date: 2010/12/26 16:00:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
Why, thank you Robin.  I enjoyed your Cooper's hawk photo, too.

You're somewhere out east, I gather?  Our western Coops tend to be more heavily streaked (I spent about 15 years working as a raptor bander every fall).

Date: 2010/12/27 12:57:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, so we're posting self-portraits now, are we?

They call me the invisible photographer ...

It's a magic lens, it made the invisible night heron in the scene above visible:

Actually, it flew off afterwards.  Highlights blown out, I don't really miss Fuji Velvia at all, shooting digital RAW you can easily catch the full dynamic range found in a shot like that.

Date: 2010/12/27 13:02:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Hmmm, there's a startling inconsistency between the top shot and bottom one (other than the bird having gone missing when I took the top one).

Can y'all figure it out? :)

Date: 2010/12/27 13:04:49, Link
Author: dhogaza
Pissed off ... and has the feet to do something about it!

Date: 2010/12/27 14:00:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
Judging by the shadows, I'd say you took the bottom one first?

Well, that's not the inconsistency I had in mind, but you're right, you've found a bonus inconsistency!

Mine is the fact that the shot from the series that I posted is horizontal, while the shot of camera and tripod and pillow (an indispensable tool!) shows the camera turned to the vertical position ...

Robin - I'll let you in on a secret ... the goshawk's been captured and banded and was being held just prior to release.  Goshawks do tend to get pissed off, though ...

Date: 2010/12/27 18:02:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
I don't yet have any pics of birds cranky with me, but this gal's still sportin' some 'tude

A female cooper's hawk on the attack has 'tude roughly equivalent to that of an NFL linebacker trying to kill a running back ...

The cardinal's very nice ... if you'd taken a half-step to the right, that little branch might've been out of the way, but it can be really difficult to see such obstructions in the viewfinder ...

Were both cooper's hawks shot with in-camera generation of JPEGs, or post-processed from raw?   In-camera shot-to-shot JPEG conversions of roughly the same scene ought to be of similar color saturation ... strange.

You're lucky to have raptors coming to your back yard like this.  I live in a fairly sterile neighborhood, though last year I did see a young peregrine falcon chasing a city pigeon in circles over a local light-industrial building a few blocks from home!   'Round and 'round and round they went, for probably five minutes, the pigeon able to turn more tightly than the peregrine, but not able to escape.  Finally the pigeon - probably tiring - broke off in a straight line with the peregrine on its heels.  Unfortunately buildings were in the way and they were low, didn't get to see the grand finale, but I'd bet on the peregrine.

Date: 2010/12/28 16:53:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
A lot of folks (like me) have feeders out so we get a lot of Cooper's coming in to pick off song bird meals. I put out seed specifically for mourning doves and Rock Doves and call them "Hawk Bait".

Well, rock doves are used as lure birds to trap raptors, and turtle doves as backups to lure those made skittish by massive fat old pigeons.

And, as I'm sure you've heard, there are only two kinds of birds:

Raptors, and raptor food.

Date: 2010/12/30 14:34:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, nothing wrong with Lou's wood ducks.  Mine were at a public park, where they come up to you looking for food if you toss a few bits of pea gravel from the walkway into the water.  They're wild (they'll leave in spring) but friendly.

Date: 2010/12/31 17:00:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sigh, I need to get back to Florida for another bird photo trip.  White Ibis are great.

This guy was pissed off at me, I was standing in about a foot of salt water in a lagoon, my 600/4 on my tripod, kicking water at this dude trying to get him to give me a look.

"Give me a look, you bastard, I'm photographing you!!!" (kick, splash).  As you can see, I splashed it so hard it lost a leg!

Some dude (who later became photo editor of Wild Bird) told me about this Reddish Egret and his perch in the middle of the lagoon, when we were shooting at the Everglades.  Three days later, it was still there ...

Crappy, unsaturated scan, though :(

Date: 2011/01/01 16:15:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
...I'm really glad to know I'm not the only one who cusses the birds when they don't do what I want...

Well, now we know why you have so many photos of pissed-off birds!

Sometimes, begging works, too ... "C'mon, baby, just a bit to the right ..."

Date: 2011/03/20 15:14:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Red-shouldered's look lankier in the wing than broad-winged's, too.  Broad-winged kiddies show a rectangular wing panel when backlit.

I think you're on it.

The only shot I got with anything from the dorsum.

As they say, white men can't jump! :)

Heard my first singing orange-crowned warbler, always the first warbler to sing here in PDX, as they move through in spring.

Date: 2011/04/10 12:09:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
...a Pied-billed Grebe (Podilymbus podiceps) appeared in a little slough next to the blind and obligingly posed for a portrait. Over the years I've found that these guys are tough to photograph...

Not in Florida...

This one's squinting due to my overexposing the shot, nearly blinding it:

Date: 2011/04/23 12:41:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
Prothonotary Warbler ...

Alger Hiss claimed, under oath when being investigated as a spy for the USSR, that one one occasion when he supposedly had gone out to meet his handler, he had actually gone to a park to go birding.

In particular, trying to see a prothonotary warbler.

(he was lying but hey, how often do warblers and spies for the USSR so up in the same story?)

Date: 2011/04/24 17:07:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
Great prothonotary warbler shot there ... normally a highly contrasty background like that would annoy me, but with the way this shot is composed and (as lou says) the nice bokeh, I think it works great.

Date: 2011/04/25 15:16:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Robin: the osprey shot rocks ...

Date: 2011/04/25 17:12:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, I'm with Lou, you can pump up the saturation in whatever program you use for post processing.

Note that a lot of pre-digital nature photography you see online or in print was shot in Velvia, which gives unnaturally saturated colors which photo editors loved.  It's a major reason why Fuji overcame Kodak in the professional film market.  Kodak fought back by introducing moderately pumped-up film like E100SW (my personal favorite for colorful birds species, and well accepted by photo editors, though I would shoot Velvia for brownish sparrows and the like, because the extra saturation makes them unrealistically attractive, and what the photo editors want, the photo editors get).

The point of this ramble is that a whole generation of people grew up looking at ultra-saturated nature photography and when presented with an image more true to the actual colors in the scene (digital is capable of much more accurate rendition) think "oh, it's washed out, it's pale, it's not real!".

So tweak it until you like it but afterwards you might find the real-life butterflies unnaturally drab :)

As to flash ... flash in nature photography requires a delicate touch, IMO, and should be balanced with ambient light in such a way as to highlight your subject without overwhelming it.

I suggest buying a good nature photography guide written fairly recently (written with modern bodies and flashes with reasonably smart exposure balancing capabilities).

Far too much to even begin to discuss in a discussion thread if you want to use flash to improve your photography (as opposed to blinding your subject).

Date: 2011/04/25 17:19:26, Link
Author: dhogaza
So here's an example of a photo of mine that could've been improved with a bit of fill flash (underexposing for ambient conditions).  The result would've been a lot less contrast and more even lighting on the pelican, without the harshness that frequently comes when flash is the main source of light.

BTW if you start exploring use of flash you'll start wanting at minimum a bracket to move the flash off-axis from the lens, and quite quickly will begin thinking of getting a bracket with two flashes off-axis from the lens and each other.

If you look at a lot of published bird photos, in particular, you'll see the tale-tells of the use of two flashes for fill - two highlights in the eye and (unless the photographer's ham-fisted with flash, which unfortunately many are) nice even light on the subject which is high-key enough to separate it a bit from the background.

Date: 2011/04/25 17:30:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
A bit more on flash ... one problem with using flash for subjects outdoors is that a naked flash is very much like a point source, like the sun, so like direct sunlight, tends to create harsh shadows.  Cloudy/raining days are the opposite, no harsh point of light in the sky, just a nice even source overhead, leading to a soft, saturated look.

Studio shooters will put diffusers in front of their studio lights to soften the light, but this is often a bit impractical outdoors (you can buy small fabric lightboxes but they're not really large enough to make much difference if you're at much of a distance from your subject).

However, when you're doing macro shots with the flash mounted on a bracket towards the lens' snout, the flash lens itself is often nearly as large or even larger than the subject.

So it doesn't light like a point source, but floods the scene evenly.

Here's a shot that shows this - the flash pops the iridescence but the light's nice and even ... the subject area here is probably about 2-3x the size of a 35 millimeter film frame (1" x 1.5" or 24mm x 36 mm) while the flash lens was about 1" x 2.5" or 3".

Date: 2011/04/26 17:15:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
wesley's double-bracket set up is similar to one I used for years, but wider because I used it most often as fill for birds.

Canon used to have these great little $50 flashes that were guide number 100 (that's not bad), basically batteries and lights and no smarts - my EOS 1 and EOS 1n featured in-camera flash exposure and flash compensation.  About 1/3 the size and 1/2 the weight of my old vivitar 285 flash.

With a smart enough camera body you don't need smarts in the flash for most stuff, and if you remember your inverse square law and realize how the camera meters, to get (say) a key light + 1 stop less fill just put the fill flash 1.4x as far away from the subject as the key (obviously easier to do in a static situation than shooting out in the field).

Albatrossity's example of fill flash is excellent - for it lights up the iridescent feathers, it's even, and it provides separation of the subject from the background.  Yet it's not ham-handed as you see so often.

Date: 2011/04/26 17:22:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
I'm not actually a big fan of ring lights ... but some people are.

In this one the flash is really the main light, mostly because I was shooting velvia (look at that saturation!) and it was dark in the cottonwood stand where I knew a pair of well-known tolerant great horned owls live.  Across the street from a cafe, so I had my camera on my tripod, flash and remote flash in one hand and, of course, milkshake in the other.

If any of you have been to SE Oregon yes, it's the Fields Oasis.

Date: 2011/04/26 17:24:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
And the second thing I learned was that young birds are often dumb enough to be in the first category.

So what's the excuse for dumb adult florida birds :)

Date: 2011/04/28 09:46:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well I used to call it Velveeta because it was pretty cheesy but those pumped up colors sure jump off the light table, and photo editors loved it (I sold photos as a somewhat serious sideline, few thousand $$$ a year, for several years).

But as I said earlier, Kodak E100SW was my favorite film for birds.  Shot a bunch of Kodachrome years ago.

I've kept my EOS 1, other than that, sold off my film bodies, including my 6x7cm system.

Date: 2011/05/20 11:55:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Pom frites.

Fried Brits ???

Date: 2011/05/20 14:54:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
no, that is French for Freedom Fries.

And all these years I thought it was "pommes frites" (not "pom" as in "bloody pom").

Date: 2011/05/30 17:02:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yes, hawk, looks like a ferruginous ...

Date: 2011/06/02 08:37:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
We think the vulture was electrocuted.

How sad, after all that time it spent hanging out waiting for you to turn into lunch ...

Date: 2011/06/12 12:30:17, Link
Author: dhogaza
Very nice photo and congratulations on the state record (assuming it's accepted, I assume you're submitting it?)

Date: 2011/06/12 18:18:15, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yeah, as a former secretary of the Kansas Bird Record Committee

I just *knew* you'd come back saying "I'm on the records committee" or something similar :)

Cool ...

Date: 2011/06/12 18:23:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
I rather like the last photo, btw, with the hummer's neck arched back and the "over-flashing" showing off the iridescence of its plumage and great detail on the feathers.

Date: 2011/06/25 18:26:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
Then a few days later I am standing on my front porch smoking (yes I know an evil habit...)

Depends on what you're smoking :)

Date: 2011/07/12 15:39:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
It seems to me global warming research didn't get serious attention until the 1980s

This guy is rolling in his grave ...

Date: 2011/07/12 23:02:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
after all you can't blame a man for what "seems to him"!!!!

Oh, yes, you can.  It's an admission of not having done any research at all at a level that, given google or even bing (good god), would show him that he was totally mistaken.

No excuses ... pillory the dude for his sillinesses (or, if you're feeling particularly Christian, crucify him!)

Date: 2011/07/19 13:44:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Robin, remember that for small things, the ratio of the physical dimensions of the flash to the subject isn't nearly as low as when you use the flash to light a subject several feet away.

That's why flash photos of macro subject tend to look more softly lit/less spectral light source than flash photos of large subjects (when the bare flash is used, the point of bouncing a flash or using a diffuser or umbrella is to increase the physical area of the light source compared to the subject).

A small bracket that holds the flash at about a 45 degree angle at the front of the lens usually works pretty well.  You'd want to experiment to get just the right angle for your lens and shooting distance.  Usually the flash will light a large enough area that you don't have to fiddle with the bracket each time you find a new subject to shoot close-up.

Date: 2011/08/12 22:15:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
These guys seemed pretty young for this late in the year, especially when you consider that they will need to be in Argentina by November...

Well, it's been a cold and wet spring throughout much of their range, so there's a good chance they won't make it, and we'll see one of those natural variability events regarding survival rates of a variety of raptors (and other species) that are migratory.

Banding migrating hawks in the Great Basin for many fall seasons (a couple of decades), one thing I've noticed is that in some cold spring years, some species (accipiters, esp) pass by in lesser numbers, but those that are caught and banded have laid down heavier body fat than normal.  While in large first-year migration years, the kids have often been skinny.  Seems that things might balance out a bit in terms of migration survival and initial health on the wintering range.

This is just anecdotal, I'd love for some grad student to dive into this data to see if there's really anything to it ...

Date: 2011/08/14 15:02:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
That's an interesting observation about the amount of body fat related to low or high-recruitment years and spring weather. If it was mostly in the accipiters, maybe they just got extra fat picking off the dickie-birds who didn't have as much cover as usual.

Heh ... maybe!  


Did the buteos show the same pattern?

The project I worked on for so many years didn't catch all that many red-tails (typically <100 red tails out of 3000 raptors trapped in a season) and other buteos rarely get trapped while passing by in migration (I trapped the first swainson's hawk banded by the project after the project had been running for a couple of decades, for instance).

The red-tails we caught always tended to be on the famished end of the scale ... the site tends to have strong thermals during their peak migration and they pass by far overhead and can't be bothered to come visit for lunch ...

Date: 2011/09/04 15:19:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
That bald admission by Spencer is a beautiful thing and I'm glad it got copied here.  It's been making the rounds for some time and it needs to be repeated whenever Spencer's name comes up.

Of course, the denialsphere loves it.  They're convinced that  mainstream climate science is a worldwide conspiracy of left-wing scientists who are just making shit up for political reasons.  So Spencer baldly stating that this is what he's doing but from the perspective of the right wing makes him a hero.  And an honest hero, unlike those lying scum mainstream climate scientists who aren't even honest enough to admit that all of mainstream climate science is a left wing-driven fraud.

Seriously.  That's how they think.  And in the case of Rick Perry, campaign for President.

Date: 2011/09/17 19:41:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Sabine's gull, I've only seen one, at the sewage ponds in Burns, Oregon (the closest town to Malheur NWR), one May many, many years ago.

For those of you who think gulls are boring, take a look at this beauty in flight (not my photo, though!):

Date: 2011/10/04 12:31:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
… CERN’s researchers have found that nearly half of the global warming observed of late isn’t traceable to man’s activities after all but to sunspots, specifically the fluctuations in solar cosmic rays that promote cloud formation …

It's news to me that the "G" in "GCR" stands for "Solar".

The rest of the quote is equally accurate.

Real Climate has a couple of posts up on it that outline exactly what the CERN people have shown.  Nothing to do with global warming at all, at this point, but some possible insight into the process of cloud formation may fall out after much future experimental work.  If such future work does show a role for GCRs in cloud formation, then of course skeptics are still faced with the fact that GCRs have varied little over the last several decades.  Nor is there evidence that cloud cover has, either ...

Date: 2011/10/25 15:17:11, Link
Author: dhogaza
I have no idea why I didn't look at a white bird and think, "yeah, blue heron..."

Not blue, but little blue, as in "there's a little blue at the base of the bill ..." :)

Date: 2012/02/18 18:21:21, Link
Author: dhogaza
I must admit that without encoutering KairosFocus aka Gordon E. Mullings I would have never learned that there is something like the Montserrat mountain chicken which is critically endangered and  anything but a bird.

No, but it *tastes* like chicken (smacks lips).

Date: 2012/02/26 19:31:27, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote (Febble @ Feb. 26 2012,19:04)
I can't believe I managed to be so stupid.  Or how unfoolproof the thing is!

OK, I need a sysadmin....

OK, I need a sysadmin....

Gil's a self-appointed software engineering genius.

Surely he can help!

(sarc off)

Date: 2012/03/20 17:52:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
the guys who do nature photography professionally use heavy tripods or Steadicams.

Or modern image-stabilized lenses, I've been very impressed with the results I've gotten with my 300/4 IS.

Of course, 500/4 and 600/4 lenses are heavy enough to require use of a monopod even with IS though Canon's latest 500/4 only weighs 7 lbs (but costs roughly 7 lbs of gold to purchase :( ).  If I choose to sell my 13.3 lb 600/4 (non-IS) for the new lightweight 500/4 it will change my life almost as much as switching from chrome to digital did ... 500/4 + 1.4x and excellent IS with my homemade shoulder stock?  Now that's an attractive vision of the future!

I've never seen a professional still shooter use a steadicam, but for video it's a very useful device.

Regarding noise, severe underexposure is another source (along with high ISO) ... but it has to be severe.

Date: 2012/03/20 18:01:14, Link
Author: dhogaza
What you get with RAW images and TIFF and PSD files is a wider dynamic range, which allows you to revisit the interpretation as your skills and your software improve.

Depending on the camera, RAW's pretty good for pulling out about 14 stops of dynamic range.  Black and white paper gives about 7 stops, velvia about 5, some chrome perhaps a stop more.

B&W negative film's capable of recording oh about 10 stops, which is why various contrast grades of paper are made (low contrast B&W paper lets you compress those 10 stops from a contrasty scene onto 7  stops, likewise a low-contrast scene printed on high-contrast paper can take advantage of the full dynamic range of the paper).

Shooting digital and capturing only JPEG is a bit like shooting chrome, i.e. you'll end up with saturation and the dynamic range of the image adjusted to fit whichever JPEG mode you've chosen (most cameras let you select various saturation levels, etc).

Shooting RAW is more like shooting a B&W neg with even better dynamic range, with the work required to adjust the dynamic range of the image to match the output device you're working with (print media, screen, etc) being much easier than learning the huge bag of darkroom tricks required to make top-notch B&W prints (without requiring a PhD in the Zone System :) ).

Sigh, there are probably younger people here who've never photographed on film and who don't know what a darkroom is! :)

Date: 2012/03/20 18:13:42, Link
Author: dhogaza

I’ve been given a promotion at work which will require even more time to solve problems with FEA simulations concerning an inflatable isotensoid supersonic decelerator for upcoming Mars missions.

In plain english, due to budget cuts, the next mars lander will land on a glorified whoopie cushion.

Date: 2012/04/20 11:52:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Since modern cameras measure exposure based on the light coming out of the ass end of the lens into the camera box, the exposure is based on the T-stop, not the F-stop, so stop your arguing, please.  Yes, if you're using an external meter and if your lens' T-stop differs from the F-stop by an easily measureable amount and if you're shooting something like Velvia with 5-stop latitude you'll want to take this into consideration.  Shooting digital RAW with the 14 stop latitude typical of modern DSLRs (at least my canon ones) ... not so much.

One problem the movie industry faces when shooting film is that prints distributed to theaters are literally contact prints of the negative the movie's shot on.  Contact printing and bazillions of frames means there's no cost effective way to fix exposure errors, even minor ones, after the movie's shot.

The ability to manipulate the image in the darkroom while printing makes things flexible enough that still shooters have always been able to use F-stops.  Adams may've talked about T-stops in The Zone System, I don't remember, but if he did, the whole exposure/film developer selection+time/development/paper selection/manipulaton during printing/paper developer selection+time dwarfed it like godzilla stomping bambi.

Date: 2012/04/20 12:04:20, Link
Author: dhogaza

It was a bit of a cheat.  The ominous feeling of the final product really wasn't there at the start.

Well ... check out the straight and final versions of Ansel Adams' Moonrise by chasing this link:

Check it out

So easy to do in the modern digital age ... so unbelievably difficult in the era of film and darkroom.

Date: 2012/04/21 13:15:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
Using a film like Kodak Technical Pan developed for continuous tone (POTA, 15 minutes at 68 degrees F, no push, no pull, no nothing) that has essentially no shoulder in the highlights makes a transmission difference like the one in the lens mentioned above highly relevant and not something that would be swamped by other parts of the process.

Well, I already pointed out that for film with limited latitude such as Velvia (slide film for those of you who don't know film from artificial cheese food) the difference between a lens' F- and T-stop could be important if they varied significantly.

Tech-Pan (which I enjoyed playing with back in the day) is certainly an unforgiving negative film.  I won't disagree with that.

Indeed, I'd say it's an exception that supports my general point that shooting typical B&W negative film, with its generous exposure latitude, coupled with the freedom one has in the darkroom with developers, paper, etc, makes a 1/2 stop difference in T- and F-stop unimportant.

After all, it is this flexibility that gave rise to the Zone System, which is end-to-end (film choice, exposure, development, paper choice, manipulation while printing, paper development, etc).

I feel like I've fallen through the rabbit hole to a place where people who I know to value knowledge in other circumstances are suddenly arguing for the primacy of ignorance in this one.

Be careful with that given your response to midwifetoad's point:

If I select 4.5 (aperture priority), the camera may select a shutter speed somewhere between 1/250 and 1/500. Actually it records the shutter speed in decimal seconds.

If I use shutter priority, the camera uses continuously variable aperture settings.

So It doesn't care what the actual transmission factor might be.

It doesn't care in these auto-exposure modes because it's measuring through-the-lens, it just sees light.  The T-stop will always be less than the F-stop, TTL metering accounts for that.  Slap a 1-stop ND filter on the front, you'll still get a proper exposure.

You don't need to know that the T-stop of your Nikkor 200-400/4 is really closer to F-5, TTL measures the light entering the camera box, it's already taken care of.

You don't even have to worry about the fact that it's very unlikely that the 200-400/4 has an absolutely constant aperture throughout its range but probably varies +/- 5% or so.

Midwifetoad's pointing this out doesn't make midwifetoad ignorant.  Your pointing out the 1/2 stop difference between T- and F-stop in the Nikkor 200-400 just underlies the convenience of TTL metering as described by midwifetoad.

My pointing out that still shooters largely ignore the difference between T-stop and F-stop for a variety of reasons doesn't make me (or the vast majority of professional shooters) ignorant.  My pointing out that T-stop  vs. F-stop is important in traditional cinematography largely because traditionally prints were contact printed from the film negative with no opportunity for frame-by-frame (or scene-by-scene) corrections of exposure doesn't make me ignorant.

Pay attention before accusing me or others of "arguing for the primacy of ignorance".

Date: 2012/04/22 23:16:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
[QUOTE]Dhogaza, Speaking of paying attention, I explicitly stated that no one here had at any time denied the ability of an autoexposure system to do its job. Acting as though that were a live issue isn't productive.[/QUOTE>


If you are using TTL autoexposure, that will (mostly) work out

That little word "mostly" indicates that you *can't* depend on TTL to measure T-stop vs. F-stop.  You explicitly state that it can't always do its job regarding differentiating F-stop from T-stop.

"(mostly)" is semantically equivalent to "not always".

Which is bullshit.

Now one can argue whether or not in-camera exposure systems can be as accurate is external metering systems, but that was not your argument.  But what ever errors internal metering systems make, they are based on T-stops, not F-stops, and the difference does not contribute to the error.

We could, of course, talk about the very many external incident meters that were produced in the 1930s, 40s, 50s, 60s that were such crap that their crappness swamped any difference between F-stop and T-stop or film speed or whatever.

Continue to box yourself in, I'm enjoying this.

Date: 2012/04/22 23:22:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Nor have I accused midwifetoad or you of being ignorant of the f-stop versus T-stop distinction (or how automation functions, for that matter). What I'm objecting to is what looks to me to be encouraging others who may not know it from even considering learning about it.

If this is truly your intent, rather than insulting someone who knows at least as much about photography as you, well ...

You're still wrong.

Modern digital photography combined with modern lenses combined with TTL exposure means you can, and should, ignore T-stop differences from F-stops.

With the 14-stop latitude modern digital cameras yield compared to the 7-stop latitude (more or less) offered by various printing technologies, you can just fucking forget 1/2 stop T-stop vs. F-stop differences, even if you meter externally.

And with modern digital cameras, internal metering is just fine.

Look, it was hard for me to trust my meter when I switched to digital and started to realize I could squeeze 14-stop latitude out of an exposure vs. the 5.5-stop or so out of chrome.

Because I realized I didn't have to be as anal about exposure as I was before (and look, I was *good* at it, selling chrome to magazines and book publishers world-wide as a side-line).

Kinda made me feel that those skills I learned were ... unimportant.

But underneath, I understood that the power of compositon, lighting, timing etc were what's really important, and if I don't need to agonize over Tech Pan's unforgiving shoulder ... that's a blessing.

Date: 2012/04/22 23:30:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
<blockquote>The Zone System does not make a difference between marked and actual transmission unimportant, it makes it well-characterized and part of the control of the process that is the photographer's responsibility.</blockquote>

It makes it very much unimportant as straight-print vs. highly-manipulated prints of Adams' photographs (such as that posted by me for "moonlight") make clear.

Crap, dude, the spring-loaded (vs. electronically timed of today) shutters were relatively flakey.

Not to mention the relatively primitive meters Adams used.

You can see from the before and after prints of "Moonlight" that Adams killed most of the dynamic range in the negative.

His T-stop vs. F-stop could've been 2 or 3 stops and he could've come up with a nearly identical image.

And, yes, I'm one of those who does not believe AA was god.

Date: 2012/05/18 17:26:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
Off on a vacation/photo trip ... just getting warmed up at Modoc NWR.

Date: 2012/05/18 17:38:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
one more crane from this morning ...

(edited) if you're not familiar with cranes, they build floating nests (rafts) out of vegetation, so this is a mom incubating eggs, somewhat safe from coyotes and other ground predators.

Date: 2012/05/18 22:37:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Maybe I'll get back in the groove after all (it's been two years since I've lugged out the 600/4, though the 300/4 IS + 1.4x has gotten some work):

Wilson's Phalarope x 4

Killdeer on the next (in the refuge parking lot, which is typical):

Male followed by female gadwall:

Date: 2012/05/18 22:46:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Freddie: beautiful wren up there.

Damn, I almost called it "winter wren" because growing up our winter wren was considered conspecific with your "wren" (Troglodytes troglodytes).  I decided maybe I should double-check that and learned that splitters have run amok.

Ours is now Troglodytes hiemalis, which sounds vaguely like a Troglodytes troglodytes that's acquired some sort of socially embarrassing disease ...

Anyway, really nice shot of a very, very tiny and often hyperactive bird.

Date: 2012/05/19 08:31:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Troglodytes troglodytes is such a great  name - but it's the only type of wren we get in the UK.

It is such a great name!  The fact that our winter wren has lost it saddens me.  Yes, I know that "wren" is your one-and-only wren and that "winter wren" reflects the fact that we have more than one.  Of course "winter wren" sings like crazy in spring ...

Late next week I'll be camped in a place that's thick with our house wren.  If it doesn't rain as badly as predicted (sigh) maybe I'll chase one around and will post the results to compare with Troglodytes troglodytes ...

Date: 2012/05/20 12:24:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
Thanks, Lou!  Deeply appreciated.

So I went out to the Modoc NWR again yesterday, got a couple of decent things, then off to the Tule Lake NWR (practice your google fu if you're curious) where

1) I ran into an old birder friend I've known since high school, now a biology professor, in the refuge HQ parking lot, who was leading a field trip

2) who invited me to join them a bit later at a particular place on the refuge (hadn't seen him in about 15 years)

3) followed by my muffler falling off the car ...

On a saturday.  Can't get it fixed until Monday.  So much for photo road trip nirvana!  Oh, well, we got to talk for about 15 minutes anyway.  He's still probably wondering why the f*** I didn't show up as promised.

Oh, well, I'll be back on the path to Malheur NWR and another 8-10 days of shooting in a couple of days.

Meanwhile I'll process more photos and maybe subject y'all to a few more if I snagged anything I like ...

Date: 2012/05/24 00:00:40, Link
Author: dhogaza
Raptor food (Belding's ground squirrel flavor) ...

Date: 2012/05/29 22:57:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
Albatrossity - fantastic photo of a fantastic bird.  Wow.  Congrats.

Lou - love the macro work, too.

Date: 2012/05/29 23:02:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ironically, I stumbled upon a decent photo of a nemesis bird of mine today, photographing along Ruh-Red Road along the Malheur refuge.  Water's highest it's been in years, bringing stuff up to the road that's normally somewhat far away.

Including this guy, perched right next to the road:

It's hard to get decent images of black tern because they're black, and hyper-fucking-active.  I got about 5 frames off (about 3 thanks to motor drive or whatever we're supposed to call it, now that there's no motor drive to drive film), then it flew.

Next goal has to be an ultra-sharp full-frame photo of one in flight, I guess!

Date: 2012/05/30 07:35:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
Screw Lou, I meant "Robin - love the macro work, too". :)

Date: 2012/05/30 14:11:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
I love the way it tern'd its head just so ...

Date: 2012/06/01 16:19:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Nice!  That is indeed a tough bird to get to sit still long enough for a portrait!

Actually the same damned bird was sitting patiently on the same post waiting for me to arrive last night.

I've never seen the like.  I was totally "WTF?", so went at it again and sat there probably 30 minutes in all as the tern preened all over.

Weird!  The designer in action!  Or Hitchcock ...

I'll post another photo of it in a day or two when I get around to processing my photos, it's been a very productive couple of days on the Ruh-Red Road, I'm a bit overwhelmed.

Date: 2012/06/05 14:48:05, Link
Author: dhogaza
Albatrossity, I've seen them once, along the New Mexico-Texas border, but not close enough to photograph.

Your photo's great.

Date: 2012/06/05 17:07:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
OK, some more from Ruh-Red Road along the north shore of Malheur Lake ... for a change of pace, how about three mammals?




OK, I didn't get the eye of the muskrat, major wildlife photo fail! :)

This was such a great trip that I'm going to do everything possible to get back out here the third week of June (gotta go to Montreal for a computer security conference next week, otherwise I'd still be there, working remotely).

Date: 2012/06/05 17:30:26, Link
Author: dhogaza
Oh, sweet, scissor-tailed flycatcher on your kiss list!

That's just too cool ...

Date: 2012/06/05 17:56:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
You never know, there might be wildlife on venus!

Date: 2012/06/06 11:53:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
i've lived on the coast for over 30 years and in the south east all my life and i'd never heard of anything called a chachalaca.

Yes, it's real, though I had no idea it had been imported to the SE for the hunting pleasure of retarded tobacco executives :)

Chachalaca are named after their call and while primarily found in Mexico, are also native to the Rio Grande Valley in Texas.

i asked our hosts if it was something that was hunted at night with a flashlight.  :)

Snipe are actually easy to find and watch or photograph!

Date: 2012/06/06 12:33:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Lots of those, but no snipe.

naw, easy ...

Date: 2012/06/06 17:53:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
That's a nice one, too ...

Date: 2012/06/19 18:27:00, Link
Author: dhogaza

Date: 2012/06/26 17:49:30, Link
Author: dhogaza
then Denali...

We want griz!  We want griz!

I'm back at Malheur NWR and have had loads of fun photographing young 'uns of various species - black-necked stilt, killdeer, pied-billed grebe, black-tailed jackrabbit, bunny.

I'll upload some stuff in a day or two ...

Date: 2012/06/27 12:15:50, Link
Author: dhogaza
But the state bird of Alaska, Willow Ptarmigan, did show up and display for us.

Nice!  Don't you love it when things come up so close that you almost have to shoo them off?

Like this badger that walked right up to my car about an hour ago.

Date: 2012/06/28 11:55:08, Link
Author: dhogaza
Nice, robin!

Date: 2012/07/02 14:19:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
OK, here's one from last week at malheur ... I just finished sorting through about 700 images tossing those that I'd missed tossing while shooting (i.e. focus miss, camera shake, bird flown from view while shutter button being clicked) so am a bit tired of Photoshop, but I'll convert a few more over the next few days to share ...

Date: 2012/07/02 18:45:57, Link
Author: dhogaza
Another bird from last week that's more often heard than seen ...

Date: 2012/07/02 23:27:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Robin: you're on it ... good job!

Now, go shoot it :)

Date: 2012/07/07 07:47:42, Link
Author: dhogaza

Bison licking its ...


That's how it picks its nose?

Date: 2012/08/16 16:33:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Very late in the year for brandt's cormorant to be feeding chicks, yet here they are.  Shot at the Coast Guard pier in Monterey.  This colony's full of courtship and nesting behavior earlier in the spring.  I shot this last week, these were the only chicks left at the colony (lots of juvies, of course, and a few of those still begging for food, mostly unsuccessfully).

Shot with my 300/4, no extender, to give you some idea of how close the colony is to the fence that bars entry to the jetty ...

This also shows the great dynamic range modern digital sensors give you.  On slide film, either the black corm body would be blocked up or the shit white (yes, that's why it's white) would be blown out.  As originally rendered same with the digital capture, but I shot it in RAW format so was able to reduce the dynamic range to the point where there's detail in both the black body and shit white rock.

Date: 2012/08/16 17:32:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
A bit soft but very cool ... about a mile into the canyon off moss landing in monterey bay ...

Date: 2012/08/16 18:27:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Your wish is my command ...

Date: 2012/08/16 18:34:12, Link
Author: dhogaza
Have another! :)  Great time spending many, many hours on monterey bay over the last two weekends ...

Date: 2012/08/16 19:11:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Thank you!  If any of you are ever in the monterey area and want to get out and watch and photograph whales, I highly recommend these people:

Their morning trips are usually 4 1/2 hours long, and their #1 boat has plenty of deck space and is relatively easy to move around from side-to-side, stern-to-bow, etc even when fully loaded (some of the companies only go out for a couple of hours per trip, and have large boats with a lousy deck space-to-passenger ratio).

And one of the captains is one of the best birders in monterey county and their naturalists and the owner are all  experienced pelagic birders ...

Date: 2012/08/18 14:50:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
I can't be stopped!  Risso's dolphin with scarring (all older ones are scarred):

Good thing Von Däniken never saw this one:

(upres'd up the whazzo in photoshop)

Date: 2012/08/26 09:55:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Killer whale diving ... I'm starting to get the hang of photographing marine mammals off of a boat:

Date: 2012/08/26 20:42:03, Link
Author: dhogaza
#1 black-headed grosbeak
#2 & #4 lesser goldfinch
#3 ya got it!

Date: 2012/08/27 19:03:25, Link
Author: dhogaza
Freddie, yes, turkey vultures and very nice indeed ...

"ETA: Looking the Goldfinch up, it looks like '2' is a Green-backed Adult Male and '4' is an adult Female."

Good - you saved me the trouble of snarkily posting "each species comes in two sexes" in response to your saying you weren't sure they were the same species.

"I work for a company in the San Jose area, but live in the UK so I only get over there once or twice a year.  I've been to Monterey several times while visiting and know the pier you are talking about above - maybe next time if the season is right i'll do the whale boat trip too!"

Morning is best as it tends to be calmer and the company I go out with stays out 4-5 hours.  Their afternoon trips are an hour shorter (and correspondingly cheaper), and if gets warm and the land breeze picks up too much are canceled fairly often.   Some of the competitors only go out for a couple of hours, which is probably good for those who get seasick but given the distance one needs to typically go to get out to and then find whales, not so good for the rest of us.

Date: 2012/09/13 15:16:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
As to the bird kills, every research article I can find on that subject points to one site, using old turbines that spin a higher rates of speed, causing a FEW bird deaths.  According to the report, cats killed more birds in the US than wind turbines.

Killing 500 California condors will have a greater ecological impact than killing 500,000 house sparrows (indeed, the condor would be extinct well before you managed to kill 500 of them).

This "we can measure the impact by counting the number of birds killed" meme is crap.  It's an intentional deflection.

The same argument can be made to claim that DDT, for instance, was not a significant threat to birds because after all, eggshell thinning only impacts a small number of species at the top of the food chain.  Yet the peregrine was extirpated throughout the lower 48 states, even though cats kill orders of magnitudes more birds than DDT killed indirectly, and even though their preferred urban prey species continue to flourish, frequently in pestilential numbers (starlings).

There are legitimate concerns regarding wind power and its effects on various species which are already under great pressure.

Fortunately, grown-ups have studied the problem, rather than simply say "cats!" as the wind industry did from the very beginning in their efforts to sweep concerns under the rug.

New designs are, as Oleg points out, better at least in regard to raptors as Altamont pass's early mills used derrick-style pylons which attracted red-tails and the like to perch-hunt from them (leading to them getting whacked by the turbine as they went to-and-fro their perch).

This has led to requirements to survey proposed sites for possible conflicts with species such as golden eagles (ridge sites) and prairie chickens and other increasingly rare gallinaceous birds (farm country sites).

And no, I'm not just making this stuff up  Mitigation, as described at the linked resource, is one approach.  To pretend there's no problem is simple ignorance.

Date: 2012/09/13 15:27:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
As to the bird kills, every research article I can find on that subject points to one site, using old turbines that spin a higher rates of speed, causing a FEW bird deaths.

Just a few moments in google scholar uncovered this.

I can only read the abstract and literature cites, but unless they introduce Altamont anecdotally and didn't bother to cite any study (unlikely) it would appear you need to google harder.

There's actually a *lot* of research going on regarding wind power impacts and mitigation on species of concern, along with long-term ongoing monitoring of fatalities at existing sites (in order to gather data which can be used to help model impacts of future wind farm installations), research into species behavior, etc etc.

It's a serious concern, not to be swept under the table by simply saying "cats!".

I'm a wind power supporter.  I'm also a believer in the TANSTAAFL principle.

Date: 2012/09/30 22:34:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, went off for a farewell afternoon at a local wildlife area that will close until April 16th ...

Pelicans, too, unusual here and probably moved over from the eastern Great Basin due to drought:

Date: 2012/10/24 19:20:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
The Institute of Scientific Apologetics is a division of Southern Evangelical Seminary that offers the Certificate in Scientific Apologetics designed for those interested in increasing their knowledge and effectiveness in defending the faith scientifically.


Date: 2013/02/15 19:40:28, Link
Author: dhogaza
" Any suggestions on what I should use for a hopefully GPU enabled language?"

The CUDA framework and parallel computational model, properly used, would help your code spew gibberish more quickerish.

There are wrapper libraries for almost every modern language *except* virtual basic ...

Date: 2013/02/20 18:16:22, Link
Author: dhogaza

There are 'Goldfinches' and 'Robins' here too (Washington State - USA) but they don't look like yours.

European goldfinch and our american and lesser goldfinches are all in the same genus.

American robin is a thrush, our early colonists weren't particularly noted for their ornithological skills.  Related to the thrush called blackbird in the UK, or merle in France, "coal thrush" in sweden (don't know the swedish), etc.  Common city bird.


There are also 'Tits' here but they are drab brown (but still cute) and they're called Bushtits. Wrentits show up around here sometimes but they're usually farther south.

No relation to european tits.  Here we call some of the related species chickadee(-dee-dee) because that's what they sound like.  Other related species we call titmouse, i.e. tufted titmouse.


Cue the jokes about Bushtits.

With blue tit, siberian tit, and (the best) great tit, the europeans have it all over us in the tit joke department!

Date: 2013/02/20 18:35:22, Link
Author: dhogaza

It has been a bit of a snooze around here, I must admit.

OK, that male elephant seal was photographed about three weeks ago by me, at Piedras Blancas, on the Big Sur coast of California.

Highly recommended.  15,000 there at the moment, and the moms whelp about 3500 pups. There's a trail that goes along a bluff right next to the beach.  I shot that with a 70-200, to give you an idea as to how close the trail brings you to the beasties.

Date: 2013/03/06 18:09:19, Link
Author: dhogaza

Also, after getting my BA in physics in 2005, I've been a math teacher/tutor for most of the last 7 years, but I'm burned out. Wondering if there are any career opportunities related to this sort of stuff.

There's tons of modeling stuff going on.  Agencies are deeply interested in how the hydrology of various watersheds and basins will be impacted by future climate change, how regional weather will change, impacts on ecosystems, etc.

Getting into such work probably involves grad school, but a BA in physics and a background in math is a good foundation for such work.  A friend of mine who's been involved in such modeling work (not the software implementation, but applying models to individual watersheds and their particular geological and hydrological characteristics combined with modeled regional changes in weather patterns) has a MS in hydrology.  For a lot of agency jobs of this nature a MS is sufficient.

Of course Republicans in the US want to cut government in half so maybe looking at an agency career isn't such a great idea ...

Date: 2013/03/08 17:36:00, Link
Author: dhogaza
Belted kingfishers are tough, they're skittish as hell.  Here's one I got many years ago:

Date: 2013/03/10 18:20:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
If you squint your eyes just so that nesting material being carried by the osprey looks like a fish!

Date: 2013/03/10 18:22:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
it's the "rubber ducky" ducky:

Date: 2013/03/10 19:48:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
"rubber ducky" is an american wigeon.  They're easily identified by the fact that they sound just like a rubber ducky (really!).

Date: 2013/03/21 17:35:37, Link
Author: dhogaza
Nice shots, Lou.  Springs coming here in Oregon, too, just a bit slower, perhaps.

Got myself a EF 100-400 f4.5-5.6 L a couple of weeks ago.  Didn't really need it but it will be great for shooting whales and mammals (vs taking my 70-200, 300/4 + 1.4x and two bodies).

From the rental department of our local pro photo shop.

$250 :)  Worn barrel but perfect glass and everything works.  New runs about $1500.  Score!

Date: 2013/03/22 13:00:23, Link
Author: dhogaza
You will not regret your choice (especially at that price! Holy fuck!)

Your photos are certainly sharp enough for any reasonable critic.  Mine seems sharp, too.

Yeah, well, they know me, not that I've done much business there, I buy all my spendy stuff from B&H.

But it was out in the used case for $350, I asked what was wrong, apparently the zoom tensioner is a bit "hinky", but it seemed to work fine for me.  Since I don't know what a non-hinky one feels right, I'm happy.  If I cared, for a couple hundred bucks I could get my local lens mechanic to lubricate it and replace any heavily worn bushings or the like, and still have a friggin' bargain, but it works fine as is so I won't bother unless it starts acting up.

So I played with it, hesitantly, and said I couldn't really justify it as I have that range covered with [slightly] sharper and faster lenses.

So he said "well, since I know you, you can have it for $250".

I ran, not walked, to the cash register waving my credit card before he changed his mind ...

Date: 2013/03/28 20:04:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
Flight shot of the night heron rocks.

I'll try to get some shots up over the weekend, though on Sunday I'm off to shoot grey whales from a zodiac, using my new 100-400.  I've done some more test shooting with it, and it's really sharp on my 7D crop camera.  I know it's not supposedly all that sharp on the edges of a 35mm frame, but I don't have no 35mm edges and it's just great :)

Date: 2013/03/29 12:09:51, Link
Author: dhogaza
Yes, they're female red-winged blackbirds.  They confuse beginners because they look so different than the males, and their streaky plumage makes them look a bit like giant sparrows (if you ignore bill shape, which beginners typically do).

Date: 2013/03/29 22:48:47, Link
Author: dhogaza
Join the club, dude, though in my case it was 30+ years ago :)

We all have our crosses to bear, no?

Date: 2013/03/30 15:44:24, Link
Author: dhogaza
A couple of shots from my recent trip to the Klamath Basin.

eye isn't sharp in this one - bite me.

speckled-bellies (greater white-fronted goose)

snow geese arranging themselves in something vaguely resembling a composition ...

tundra swan commenting on my new car ...

since I saved so much on my EF 100-400 L I decided to splurge on an outback ...

Date: 2013/03/30 15:47:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Here's a sample image from my $250 EF 100-400 L, looks sharp enough to me!

Another ...

Goose foot detail (figured it was a good target to judge sharpness)

Date: 2013/04/01 14:59:04, Link
Author: dhogaza
"Judging by the shots above the 100-400mm seems to do the job w.r.t sharpness vs. the prime (plus the prime has no IS)"

I love IS.  Not only for being able to handhold at lower shutter speeds, but also for making it easier to compose and frame static subjects (when I was young, I prided myself on my steady hands, at 59, they ain't as steady as they once were).

There is the expectation that a upgraded 100-400L will be announced later this year.  If that happens, I'd expect the used market for the existing version to perk up and bargains to be had.

Date: 2013/04/04 17:10:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Nice photos, Lou.

And tomorrow, there will be eight ducklings, and the day after ...

Date: 2013/04/25 19:23:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Wesley, I've shot with a homemade shoulder stock for 20 years.   I don't use it currently because my IS mid-range teles are easily hand-holdable, and I'm not strong enough to hand-hold my 6kg 600/4 non-IS even with the shoulder stock.  Well, I can hold it with the shoulder stock, I just can't hold it *still*.  If it had IS I could manage it.  I envy those with Canon's latest 600/4 IS which weighs less than 4kg ...

But I used to use it with my 3kg 300/2.8 non-IS with and without 1.4x and 2x extenders before I sold it.

Date: 2013/04/25 19:24:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ran across these cuties while at Ridgefield NWR (WA) a couple of days ago:

Date: 2013/04/25 23:16:38, Link
Author: dhogaza
Too much information, if I see you, I might have to shoot you.

With a camera, of course :)

Date: 2013/04/28 09:49:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote (The whole truth @ April 27 2013,23:21)
dhogaza, are you aware that there is a Black Necked Stilt at RNWR? It's hanging out in the partially flooded field on the south side of Rest Lake.

Yes, I just heard that friday, ran into someone at Bowerman Basin who told me so.  That wasn't you, was it?

Date: 2013/04/28 09:51:16, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote (Robin @ April 28 2013,06:19)
Here's shot of a tree swallow flying. I am surprised I actually got this shot.

So am I!  All of the tree swallow photos are excellent, good job.

Date: 2013/04/28 12:22:42, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,10:59)
Nope, that wasn't me. Are there gobs of shorebirds at Bowerman Basin as usual? There were some yellow legs, dowitchers, and sandpipers at RNWR on Friday.

Bowerman Basin is slow, count was about 7,000 for the last high tide I saw numbers for (probably thursday).  Should start picking up very soon.  Saw some good-sized flocks feeding around ocean shores.  Weather was horrible up there saturday so didn't even bother with bottle beach.  But did photograph dunlin, western sandpipers, and sanderlings feeding at Point Brown, in the rain.  I'll post a couple of pics here.  There were several hundred feeding on the rising tide.

Yes, I saw and heard yellowlegs and dowitchers at RNWR last weekend, and saw some smallish flocks of peeps.

Date: 2013/04/28 14:31:00, Link
Author: dhogaza

Only got to look for and then photograph shorebirds for about a half hour at ocean shores on saturday, as monsoon-like conditions set in and chased me off. Here we have dunlin feeding on a mother lode of what appear to be sand shrimp, with shorter-billed sanderling in the foreground apparently unable to share in the feast.

Date: 2013/04/28 23:48:14, Link
Author: dhogaza
Quote (The whole truth @ April 28 2013,15:36)
It's also nice of dunlin to have markings that make them easier to identify than some other shore birds.

Don't worry, I'll post some winter-plummaged dunlin in a few months.

Date: 2013/05/06 20:03:46, Link
Author: dhogaza
thewholetruth: does this look like your bittern?  I photographed it at Ridgefield friday the 3rd, on my way to ocean shores.  Caught in the act of "sump-pumping":

Date: 2013/05/06 20:06:45, Link
Author: dhogaza
Since we're doing "life photographed birds", at Damon Point there was this nice black-bellied plover.  I've gotten photos in the past of them in grey plover plumage, but not breeding ...

And this, which we don't see so often any more - ruddy turnstone, one of five at Bottle Beach ...

Date: 2013/05/06 20:37:54, Link
Author: dhogaza
Now for some better photos from this weekend ... all from ocean shores.  as you can see, the weather was much nicer than the weekend before.

western sandpiper:

Semipalmated plover

And dunlin

Date: 2013/05/06 22:48:27, Link
Author: dhogaza
Are they (ruddy turnstones) diminishing in numbers?

Yes, but they're so widespread that they're not of international concern at the moment.  But on our pacific coast, declines have been steep.  On the other hand, there's strong evidence of cyclical  changes in numbers, with numbers 40 years ago being at a high point in our area.  So no one knows for sure AFAIK.

But ...

Many PNW shorebirds are diminishing.  Back when I first learned of bowerman basin in gray's harbor, documented numbers of migrants feeding there were in the 500K range.  Today, 100K would be exciting.

Date: 2013/05/06 22:56:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Your photo looks fine, BTW.  Light's less harsh than when I took mine (in the midst of this record-setting high temp and high-intensity sun weather we've had).

And mine was on the east end of the second canal on the right (north).  Scott Carpenter apparently photographed it for some time before I showed up mid-morning.

black-bellieds are easy enough to find in singles and in isolation.  The brits call them grey plover because apparently they don't (or almost never) see them in breeding plumage.  We catch some of them in breeding plumage.

But on all of ocean shores, where I was playing with many flocks of multiple thousands of shorebirds, I only saw one black-bellied, and it was by itself.

Bottle beach had maybe a half-dozen - a place where 100,00 shorebirds aren't unknown.

Date: 2013/05/20 07:37:20, Link
Author: dhogaza
Ocean shooting ...

Pacific ocean last weekend ...

Risso's dolphins practicing synchronized swimming:

Baby humpback during one of its 40 or so breaches:

And yesterday on the sagebrush ocean ... (well, OK, flood-irrigated field in the Great Basin):

Also at Monterey Bay last weekend, obligatory Brandt's cormorant colony ...

Date: 2013/05/22 17:43:39, Link
Author: dhogaza
Fortunately the price in the US is "only" $11K+, y'all in the UK is bein' robbed!

No, I'm not in the market, I want to upgrade my 18 yr old non-IS 600/4 to the latest version (along with IS and better sharpness, the new one weighs 8+ lbs rather than the 13.3 lbs my current one weighs).

But that 200-400/4+built-in 1.4x is a sweet, sweet lens.  Perfect for safari in Africa, for instance, where you're stuck in a vehicle and where distances to various bits of wildlife range from really close to distant.  Testers note no noticeable decrease in sharpness when the 1.4s kicks in (obviously there will be, but it appears to be so sharp it's not noticeable though I'm sure the pixel-peeper testers will quantify it).

Much like my shooting from boats, which led to my picking up a 100-400/4.5-5.6 used for $250.  Yes, the price difference is one reason I'm not upgrading :)

Date: 2013/06/02 00:15:06, Link
Author: dhogaza
Burrowing owl, carrying insect prey ...

Date: 2013/06/04 15:00:22, Link
Author: dhogaza
black tern ... file this and the previous under the category "malheur rocks"

Date: 2013/06/04 19:24:36, Link
Author: dhogaza
Thanks, Lou!  I had a very productive two weeks at Malheur.

(when people roundabout these parts talk about "going to Malheur", that includes Fields, the Alvord Desert, Hart Mountain, Steens Mountain, Catlow Valley, and the flood-irrigated fields around Burns, along with Malheur NWR - easily 3,000 square miles, the refuge alone is 300.)

Black tern reflection ...

Date: 2013/06/05 18:00:18, Link
Author: dhogaza
And one of my favorites, unusual for the west (but plentiful in the malheur marsh's south end), bobolink ...

Date: 2013/06/14 13:27:48, Link
Author: dhogaza
There's been glaciers growing in Alaska, Norway, etc.

That's pretty much the standard level of logic of denialist arguments.

"only 99% of glaciers are shrinking, therefore it is getting colder."

Date: 2013/06/18 11:34:49, Link
Author: dhogaza
Modelers invented, out of whole cloth it appears, so-called water vapor amplification which transforms 1.1C of well modeled sensitivity into 3C of poorly modeled sensitivity.

Ya figures out what the ocean does in response to C02 change and everything else is details.

Poor Dave.  As CO2 forcing increases and temps rise, relative humidity stays roughly the same because so much of the earth is covered by ocean.  The second quote is correct.  The first quote is bullshit as "modelers" didn't invent water vapor feedback "out of whole cloth", it is derived from the Clausius-Clapeyron equation and long-established physics used in meteorology.


Date: 2013/06/18 11:38:58, Link
Author: dhogaza
Man, I could get into a cage fight between Steven Mosher and DaveScot Springer.  Dave has met his match in arrogance, immorality, dishonesty, and general all-around assholedness.

For those not familiar with Mosher, some years back he coined the nickname "Piltdown Mann" for Michael Mann, implying that Mann's paleoclimate reconstruction work (aka "hockey stick") was an intentional fraud ala the Piltdown Man fraud.

He, along with an even more ignorant jerk named Tom Fuller, co-authored a book on "climategate" which was filled with accusations of scientific misconduct, etc.

He is slime, as is DaveScot, so I suggest the cage fight be held in a slimepit.

Date: 2013/06/18 23:23:07, Link
Author: dhogaza
Gotta bump this thread ... osprey shot yesterday ...

Date: 2013/06/20 10:49:10, Link
Author: dhogaza
Carp, not anchovy.

midwifetoad, I'm looking forward to continue shooting this nest as the season progresses and the young fledge.  They're totally acclimated to human presence, and ODF&W conveniently built a mound about 15-20 feet high near the nest which gives a much nicer angle of view than from the ground (it's construction refuse, an unexpected bonus being the better osprey viewing).

so y'all might have to put up with more osprey photos from me as time goes on :)

Date: 2013/06/20 18:37:44, Link
Author: dhogaza
"Watts is a climate researcher. It is true. Doubt it if you want, but at least check it, moron."

Watts is a college dropout.  In other words, his highest academic accomplishment is a high school diploma.

His only claim to relevance is the fact that he used to read weather reports on TV.  He is not and never has been a meteorologist, much less a "climate researcher".

Among other things, he has demonstrated time and time again that he doesn't understand junior high school algebra much less any higher maths such as high school trigonometry.

He also doesn't understand chemistry or physics at even the most lay of layman levels.

This is your galileo ...

Date: 2013/06/20 23:10:13, Link
Author: dhogaza
Just today, an example of Watts not understanding junior high school algebra!

(or elementary school math, take your pick)

He compares the NCDC result to the UAH TLT (lower troposphere) temperature, mentioning that the UAH value is only 0.07 while the NCDC value is 0.66 — big difference! But this quite ignores the fact that the UAH TLT data and the NCDC data use a different baseline, i.e. a different zero point.

Watts always seems unable to understand that the slope of a line is, for a given baseline ...

(t1 - b) - (t2 - b)/time

so b (baseline) falls out.  He's been told this over and over and over again, and here, more or less a decade or more later, he still doesn't get it.

Date: 2013/07/30 11:46:29, Link
Author: dhogaza
That Savannah Hawk is amazingly beautiful, as is your photo of it.

Meanwhile, my osprey family is pretty much all grown up, with the first two chicks having apparently fledged very recently, while the third isn't quite there yet.  Here's one of the kids, enjoying its newly developed powers of flight:

Date: 2013/08/17 10:02:31, Link
Author: dhogaza
I went out to do a little bird shooting last weekend myself.  Found thousands of sooty shearwaters.  Unfortunately, those in this photo are badly out of focus.  Sorry 'bout that.

Date: 2013/08/17 20:13:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Today I didn't even bother trying to photograph birds ...

Date: 2013/11/10 09:20:33, Link
Author: dhogaza
Birds aren't the only animals that fly ...

From about three weeks ago in monterey bay:

Date: 2013/11/10 09:22:53, Link
Author: dhogaza
But I still photograph birds, also from about three weeks ago, at Moss Landing, CA:

Date: 2013/12/19 23:22:35, Link
Author: dhogaza
Learned Hand doesn't actually understand how Monte Carlo models work …

"She explained, patiently, that you don't want a model to return different numbers every time you run it, since you use those models to test assumptions. If the results change every time you run it, you can't tell whether those changes are down to randomness or the new assumptions. So you run one set of randomized scenarios, but you use the same seed every time so the results don't change until you start changing assumptions."

Tell that to Johnny Von Neuman, who developed Monte Carlo techniques.

Or modern climate modelers, or those who model new airplane designs.

Date: 2014/02/14 17:40:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Well, I guess I must subject y'all to some of my recent output …

Date: 2014/02/15 21:33:56, Link
Author: dhogaza
Piedras Blancas, which became an active rookery about 20 years ago (possibly individuals which found Año Nuevo too crowded as the species recovered after receiving protection).  The Piedras Blancas population is much larger, and there's a boardwalk that takes you within 20 feet or so of the beach, and often there are elephant seals close enough to shoot with a 200mm or 300mm lens, including moms with pups.

Date: 2014/02/16 21:27:55, Link
Author: dhogaza
From today …

Date: 2014/02/17 18:53:14, Link
Author: dhogaza
Another I took an hour or so after the otter …

Least sandpiper for those who think such things are important :)

Date: 2014/03/09 16:05:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
OK, here's thursday's obligatory bird photo, a juvie white-throated sparrow (a bit uncommon in these parts):

Date: 2014/04/07 15:50:02, Link
Author: dhogaza
Here's last evening's obligatory insufferably cute sea otter mom and pup photo.  Mom caught the crab, as you can see the pup snatched a leg.  Two mom-and-pup pairs feed in the same place almost every evening in the Moss Landing lagoon and I can't get enough of them, not to mention the marbled godwits, long-billed curlews, willets, dowichers, peeps, white pelicans, red-breasted mergansers, cormorants and the like that hang out on the mudflats nearby.

Date: 2014/04/12 09:22:52, Link
Author: dhogaza
Another snapshot taken yesterday … look closely and you can barely see a red jacket reflected in the water coating the whale's rostrum.

Date: 2014/04/24 19:28:43, Link
Author: dhogaza
OK, a few from this week …

Yes, that last one is of a very young calf.

Date: 2014/05/11 23:42:34, Link
Author: dhogaza
Some new bird and mammal photos taken over the last week ...

black-footed albatross … ran into about thirty of them feeding on discards from a commercial fishing boat.

Obligatory humpbacks …

And Risso's dolphins …

Date: 2014/05/16 17:26:41, Link
Author: dhogaza
A few Risso's dolphins from yesterday … mating frenzy.

Gotta wonder what it feels like to be a female Risso's dolphin, center of attention of a pack like this!