I’m going to be laughing about this for decades. In fact, I may be amused about this the rest of my life and if I’m reincarnated, I may be born amused about it in my next life.
The story from PZ Myers (h/t Feministe).
I went to attend a screening of the creationist propaganda movie, Expelled, a few minutes ago. Well, I tried … but I was Expelled! It was kind of weird — I was standing in line, hadn’t even gotten to the point where I had to sign in and show ID, and a policeman pulled me out of line and told me I could not go in. I asked why, of course, and he said that a producer of the film had specifically instructed him that I was not to be allowed to attend. The officer also told me that if I tried to go in, I would be arrested. I assured him that I wasn’t going to cause any trouble.
I went back to my family and talked with them for a while, and then the officer came back with a theater manager, and I was told that not only wasn’t I allowed in, but I had to leave the premises immediately. Like right that instant.
I complied.
I’m still laughing though. You don’t know how hilarious this is. Not only is it the extreme hypocrisy of being expelled from their Expelled movie, but there’s another layer of amusement. Deep, belly laugh funny. Yeah, I’d be rolling around on the floor right now, if I weren’t so dang dignified.
You see … well, have you ever heard of a sabot? It’s a kind of sleeve or lightweight carrier used to surround a piece of munition fired from a gun. It isn’t the actually load intended to strike the target, but may even be discarded as it leaves the barrel.
I’m a kind of sabot right now.
They singled me out and evicted me, but they didn’t notice my guest. They let him go in escorted by my wife and daughter. I guess they didn’t recognize him. My guest was …
Richard Dawkins.
He’s in the theater right now, watching their movie.
Tell me, are you laughing as hard as I am?
Seriously, I may laugh about this for decades to come.
#1 by tristan forward on March 22, 2008 - 7:54 am
marvellous !
biff the enemy !
#2 by Richard Warnick on March 22, 2008 - 8:05 am
Kind of an inside joke. I had to look up Richard Dawkins, and of course I wouldn’t recognize him on sight. Or PZ Meyers, for that matter.
#3 by Glenden Brown on March 22, 2008 - 8:17 am
Richard – I wouldn’t recognize them either – the big joke of course is that Dawkins was actually in the film. I’ve read Dawkins’ The God Delusion and he’s no fan of religion or any of its weirder outgrowths like “Intelligent Design.”
#4 by Cliff Lyon on March 22, 2008 - 9:20 am
I can assure you, the freaks what made dat movie know well what Richard Dawkins looks like.
#5 by Glenden Brown on March 22, 2008 - 11:29 am
Too true Cliff!
One of the articles I found about the incident pointed out that conservative christians have become surprisingly comfortable with dishonesty in the service of their faith.
#6 by Larry Bergan on March 22, 2008 - 1:59 pm
These aliens among us are indeed funny, however don’t laugh TOO hard. They are intent on, and have to a very large extent taken over our justice system. The Falwellians, Robertsonians, and Dobsonists are/were, dangerous characters who don’t like being laughed at and are waiting for the time when they can grab you by the balls in the public square.
Remember Monica Goodling’s testimony before the congress? Of course you don’t. The media let the story die, just like every other story that could help us understand what trouble we’re in. At that hearing, Goodling unwillingly entered the practice of “voter caging” into the record, but voter caging is just the tip of the iceberg.
Let Professor Mark Crispin Miller explain, better then I can, why you shouldn’t laugh too hard in his illuminating video called “Laughing In The Dark.” Professors usually don’t risk their careers by taking on things such as election fraud, but my hat goes off to this unusually brave individual who not only exposes election fraud in books like “Fooled Again”, but rightfully connects the fraud to a giant religious conspiracy. He doesn’t paint these people as evil, but thinks they believe the liberals and lefties are evil and feel compelled to commit crimes or do ANYTHING to stop them/us.
#7 by jasonthe on March 22, 2008 - 2:15 pm
Very funny. I’d be interested to hear what Dawkins thought of the movie.
Just in time for this if you’re interested in sending One Utah up for a mention:
Blog Against Theocracy ‘08.
#8 by Ken Bingham on March 22, 2008 - 7:36 pm
Yes it is full of Irony. Like the kind of irony when scientists tell you its warming and facts indicate it its cooling. Cliff read this article and weep.
Climate facts to warm to
#9 by Albert O. on March 22, 2008 - 8:51 pm
Nice try, Ken. But all in all, I would expect more from your college-educated self than simple reference to opinions of those belonging to a right-wing Australian think-tank:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institute_of_Public_Affairs
Care to try again? After all, your children’s and grand-children’s environment may well be at stake!
#10 by Ken Bingham on March 22, 2008 - 9:09 pm
Albert O
Wikipedia is a good source for things that are non-controversial but not very credible when it comes to political matters since anyone can edit it. Try again.
#11 by Albert O. on March 22, 2008 - 9:17 pm
Ken:
I would be happy to provide you additional information. Perhaps this NASA link will give you some food for thought:
http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/2007/
Just in case you have an issue with NASA scientists or links to information, let me cite the following quote for you:
“The eight warmest years in the GISS [Goddard Institute for Space Studies] record have all occurred since 1998, and the 14 warmest years in the record have all occurred since 1990.”
PS. If wikipedia is not a trust-worthy source for this topic, then I suggest that neither is Jennifer Marohasy, a well-documented right-wing nut case with an agenda.
The ball is back in your court, dude. Care to try again?
#12 by Ken Bingham on March 22, 2008 - 9:32 pm
ALbert O
You must not read very much except for left wing propaganda. NASA was forced to revise their numbers after a blogger proved them wrong.
Read and weep.
http://au.answers.yahoo.com/answers2/frontend.php/question?qid=20080102144325AAzNepe
#13 by Albert O. on March 22, 2008 - 9:56 pm
Why thank you, Ken, for pointing this out to me. I had no idea. Nevertheless, I used the current and revised report as the link in my above post. The quote attributing the 8 warmest years since 1998 and the 14 warmest on record since 1990 thus stands.
But while we are at it, let’s have some fun with some of the information provided in your source of critique of the NASA report, now since corrected of the flaw and, likely, to the satisfaction of Steve McIntyre, the person pointing out the flaw in the data to the report’s author, James Hansen.
Here is some of the comments you provided me:
Yes, Ken, I am weeping. I am weeping because it pains me to guess the amount of money, time and effort you have invested in your college education only to walk away with fewer analytical abilities than I did from grade school.
#14 by morocco caveat banana on March 23, 2008 - 5:32 am
Try the Oxycontin. You’ll become righter and righter. It also reduces any tendency to weep without reason.
#15 by Cliff Lyon on March 23, 2008 - 8:20 am
Ken,
Climate science is not politics. Its science. The only ones making it about politics are the oil companies and the most gullible sheeple.
#16 by Albert O. on March 23, 2008 - 9:22 am
You’d think these right-wing nutcases – e.g., Ken Bingham – would take to heart the fact their arguments are being recorded for posterity on the Internet.
What that means, Ken, is your children and grandchildren, etc., will, for example, have a record of your positions and arguments, near-devoid of analysis or scientific reasoning, re global warming. If you are wrong, oh how the fingers will point your way tens and hundreds of years from now.
And, of course, this record is a bit more viable and reliable than a stack of gold plates inscribed with reformed Egyptian gobbledygook requiring seer-stones to transcribe. There will be no wiggle room, kooky explanations, or need for after-the-fact corrections to make the record true and perfect. The record will be, then, what you make it, today!
Accordingly, you may wish to actually ponder what you write on the subject of global warming, Ken, as your reputation here and in the afterlife, as both a shepard of this planet and a technically-educated college graduate, verily, I say, shall depend on it!
Have a great Easter!
#17 by Ken Bingham on March 23, 2008 - 4:21 pm
Cliff
As we have discussed before, I don’t argue with the science, I think there is good ample evidence that we were in a warming period, just like there is now ample evidence that the Earth is cooling. Climate is cyclical and just like a sine wave, it goes up and down in a very orderly fashion. These natural cycles have nothing to do with human activity, and no amount of money, no reduction in c02 output, no amount of restrictions on human freedom is going to effect the world’s climate in any significant way.
Where I do argue with science are those that make predictions based on our current knowledge of climate, and how the media reports those predictions as fact. Science has never been great at predicting in the long term. The only method we have of predicting the effects of a warmer planet is to go study how things were before when the Earth was warmer, and none of the things that some scientists are predicting occurred at other times when the Earth was warmer, so it’s pretty easy to discount the prophets of doom.
Cliff, you cannot say that global warming isn’t about politics when just about every recommendation to stop global warming has a political element to it. The term “denier” is in itself a politically charged term. Global Warming or Climate Change has been married to left wing politics, which is one reason there is so much resistance to it. So it is extremely disingenuous for you to say that it is all about science and not politics.
#18 by morocco caveat banana on March 23, 2008 - 5:06 pm
OK, let’s talk about peak oil some more. Is the test of the status quo to see just how long we can make it go on? I’m all for extending everything just the way it is but sooner or later the pendulum must be allowed to recover its balance. So what the hey, why not something a bit different. Christ didn’t have an eight-banger. Nor will my grandkids.
#19 by Albert O. on March 23, 2008 - 10:33 pm
Ken,
Please point out to me the very orderly “sine wave” behavior of the climate that you refer. In all the graphs of temperature that have been used to make one point or the other on this blog and others, I would like to see where you see a sine wave, or anything even close to a sine wave.
Your last comment is little more than a broad brush cop out to a potentially very serious argument which, by the way, you appear to be having difficulty in successfully defending your initial position.
#20 by Cliff Lyon on March 24, 2008 - 5:41 am
As further illustration of my point about authoritarian obediance to a tribal identification, I would like to point out how Ken’s langauage confirms this.
Lets see. Could Ken be saying, “Global Warming or Climate Change has been married to left wing politics, which is [why I resist it].”
So Ken, to be clear, you deny scientific consensus BECAUSE YOU associate it with the left?
And how does that play out with your parents and “companions?” Are there interpersonal consequences for you too? Are there people in your life who may judge you less generously if you were to acknowledge and echo the science of climate change? And if this is true, are you not being disingenuous to argue the science when if fact its all about tribe?
#21 by Richard Warnick on April 13, 2008 - 8:24 am
Via Sean Means of the Trib, I finally start to understand what “Expelled” is about. But I’m still confused about one thing. It’s strange that Ben Stein is in it, I like him and tend to think he’s too intelligent to believe in “intelligent design.” Anyway, Ben Stein is Jewish.
#22 by Larry Bergan on April 13, 2008 - 12:17 pm
People like Galileo and Darwin risked life and limb to get their message out, but are treated well by history. History is no friend of Ben Stein unless these CREATIONIST guys get their way and change history, or their name AGAIN to meet their needs.
The creators of “intelligent design” are manipulative patriarchs. The believers of it are people who stand behind stupid ideas and get mad when people treat them stupid. Go figure.
#23 by Anonymous on April 14, 2008 - 7:31 am
Larry, Galileos’ determination that the Earth revolved around the sun was repressed, as to most of the “scientists” at the time the Earth was “without a doubt” the center of the universe.
They had determined this from all the best data available. The high priests concurred, and were not scientists, but their word carried the weight of the falsehood. In a interesting parallel, al is the pope of human induced global warming.
Threatened with death, Galileo was forced to recant his discovery, which he did do, and then spent the rest of his life under house arrest. Brave, but not brave enough to die for his discovery of the truth.
Darwin took no more risks than any other man who climbed aboard a ship and risked the seas to study the natural world.
Galileos’ story sounds something like the burgeoning orthodoxy beginning to evolve around anthropogenic induced global warming theory. Many who support the concept today have openly admitted that humanity needs the theory to change our behavior…even if it isn’t true. That’s about what gthe pope thought in G’s time. Don’t rock the boat with any uncomfortable flaws in our orthodoxy, and preserve the religion.
#24 by Larry Bergan on April 14, 2008 - 12:28 pm
Al Gore is not a sect and is infinitely less dangerous.
#25 by Anonymous on April 14, 2008 - 1:50 pm
I dunno, the sects keep to themselves.
Whatever al is going to do is going to cost the working man a pile of money, and the problem won’t fixed, just big al selling carbon credits harvested from your enforced lifestyle change, from his carbon credit bank corporation. His jet will be exempt of course. al is the “sect” ion leader of the New
Church of the Divine Carbon Crust, followers of such are as much doom sayers as snake handling revelationists. It is truly amusing.
al pretended to want to be president, and in the face of all manner of corruption lay down for those that have ruled these last 8 years. He helped pass nafta, he shilled for private prisons, so well that federal prison population doubled during clintons’ sentence, uh term. He sucks, plain and simple.
If you are to elect someone, at least support someone that has a backbone and will fight and mix it up with the ruling cretins. In als’ case he fancies himself. a ruling cretin. What do you from a guy with an oil and tobacco background?
Instead he decided for something more his speed, a flight path powered by kerosene burning jet, into the world of the NGO’s.
Support a loser, lose people.
#26 by Glenn Hoefer on April 14, 2008 - 2:36 pm
More bad news for the Church of human inducted Global Warming.
#27 by Cliff Lyon on April 15, 2008 - 5:27 am
Thanks Glenn for adding to the permanent record of the tactics deniers employ to further deceive.
I’ve learned to always begin by checking sources. This one quickly confirmed the source, “Kristopher Kubicki, Editor in Chief of gossip rag Daily Tech…I should probably point out an example of the egregious nature of Kubicki’s style of gutter journalism…Kubicki, obviously not wanting to do anything that would hurt the quest for untruth”
Nuf said? Not yet lets review Glenn’s own technique.
Firstly, the article you linked does not address the question of human contribution to warming. So your preface is the first sign of either deliberate deception or a corrupt mind.
Second, even the tech rag that published the story concluded that the Kerry “Emanuel’s newest work…found that while storm strength rises slightly in some areas, it falls in others”.
What we have here is simply a scientist who is reporting new findings from a new computer model that stretches 200 years into the future.
So the entire basis of this fallacious representation of a scientific “work” is that suddenly now, the scientific model is gospel.
Pretty pitiful catch there Glenn.
#28 by Anonymous on April 15, 2008 - 8:31 am
Listen to NPR today, April 15, human induced global warming theory is so full of holes a 16 year old can refute it, with evidence gathered from the internet.
The article doesn’t address the human contribution because it cannot be proven empirically.
Is just me or does anyone have any idea what cliff is trying to say?
#29 by Kristen Byrnes website speaks on April 15, 2008 - 9:36 am
The 15 year old takes on the cult, using science. She blinded them with SCIENCE!!
http://www.globalwarminghoax.com/e107_plugins/content/content.php?content.6
#30 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 10:25 am
Al Gore’s movie created a cottage industry of global warming (Al Gore) deniers that now have had enough time to get arguments and web sites together. Why? Because Al Gore is a scary, scary man and they just HAD to do something even if it meant spending their own time and money to stop him.
glenn will point all of these websites out to us because this evil, evil man must be stopped and because “all politicians are the same.” Thank you for your contribution to our society glenn.
#31 by Jinkies Scooby on April 15, 2008 - 12:19 pm
I don’t know what glenn did, but I thank you, and you are welcome. I have never seen als’ car sales pitch.
Too bad you don’t read Larry, the 15 yr. old like most, have not denied warming, just provide the evidence that we are not the cause of it. I know, warming is likely natural, like the warming that melted the 10,000 feet of ice that covered Canada and most of the Northern Hemisphere, only 13,000 yrs ago. I know it is hard to swallow, that we are not as powerful as we once thought. A sizing down of the human ego won’t be a bad thing. Start at home.
Tell it to the 15 yr. old, she has more on the ball than most of ya.
Al is a fraud, and you are the willing victims of his 3 card monte. al is indeed a very, very, bad man. He’s the guy who won the election to be US president, and lay down like a 20 baht whore in a Thai brothel.
#32 by Larry Bergan on April 15, 2008 - 1:44 pm
The 15 year old site asks for a login which I don’t have glenn.
#33 by Albert O. on April 15, 2008 - 2:23 pm
Having read Ms. Kristen Byrne’s article, I remain scratching my head trying to find the beef for the conclusion. Lot of graphs, that’s for certain, but there is little in the article that links the conclusion to the information supplied; excepting, however, a fair amount of conjecture, as I would expect to find in a science project written by a non-scientist high-school student (or Ken Bingham).