Comments on: The Creamy Baileys Nobel Peace Prize for Science, 2008 – Voting

By: The Scaly Manfish: Mix 2 Oz. Baileys with a Gallon of Pure Grain Stupid « The Poor Man Institute

Mon, 12 Jan 2009 19:00:16 +0000

[...] Grain Stupid Posted by curv3ball under Uncategorized The contest for next year’s Creamy Bailey Nobel Peace Prize was over before it even started. Probably. I equivocate because the flat earth [...]

By: julia

julia — Thu, 01 Jan 2009 11:36:39 +0000

Nothing compares to Paglia. She’s an ambulatory Sokal hoax some disgusted hipster god is playing on people who imagine they see content there amid the bombast (Andrew Sullivan, say, or those straining contrarians at Salon).

By: Matt McIrvin

Matt McIrvin — Wed, 31 Dec 2008 04:29:00 +0000

I was sorely tempted to vote for Inhofe just because he’s Inhofe, but, no, I can’t pass up the Easterbrook.

By: chris is your best friend

chris is your best friend — Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:25:02 +0000

Doctor Memory is right, but the guilty must still be punished.

By: PaulW

PaulW — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 23:00:47 +0000

Wait. I don’t think Easterbrook is blaming global warming on gamma bursts (which is his whole Death-Star-Exploding hypothesis for their origins… I think). And anyone who speaks well of the Football Gods holds well in my book. So I’m cutting him some slack.

Inhofe’s attempt at juvenile wankery, though, by ignoring the whole issue by insulting the guy talking about it… he earns my scorn.

By: John Quiggin

John Quiggin — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 07:16:42 +0000

Another Paglia fan. She should surely get bonus points for being published in Salon, which means her pose as an iconoclast must have convinced someone who should know better.

By: Rugosa

Rugosa — Sat, 27 Dec 2008 06:15:20 +0000

A tough choice here, as all are worthy wankers, but in the spirit of the real Nobels, I vote for Inhofe. Over the years, he has developed a promising hypothesis into a coherent theory – global warming is a fraud perpetrated by evil conspiratorial scientists. He has collected an impressive quantity of data (pulled from you-know-where), published in peer-reviewed journals (the press that prints whatever the wingnuts put out), and earned the support of mainstream thinking in his field (he keeps getting elected).

By: Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 23:53:14 +0000

Obviously you are not aware of the well established S Fred Awards for spreading science disinformation and climatology incoherence and the newer Tim Ball given for resume stretching beyond the elastic limit. Past winners of the S. Fred include God, nominated by n3xus6

....But really, one omniscient, omnipresent entity stands out: God. (quoting Science Order and Reality) "As Christians we must remember that God provided certain ‘checks and balances’ in creation to prevent many global upsets that have been predicted by environmentalists." One doesn’t like to preempt the IPCC 4th report, but it can be assumed God’s ‘checks and balances’ aren’t prominent. But wait, there’s more! Channeling the Creator, Science of the Physical Creation states: "All of the scientific evidence indicates that there is no danger of a global warming disaster." Although God’s recent performances have been lackluster, she has proven form in attempting to overthrow the scientific orthodoxy. 2007, 2008 2009 will be her year.

By: Jimboy

Jimboy — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 22:23:45 +0000

Easterbrook gets my vote, though it is a strong field and a close call, any one of them would have been a worthy winner.

By: Phoenix Woman

Phoenix Woman — Fri, 26 Dec 2008 03:21:49 +0000

Paglia, simply because Salon is witless enough to keep her on the payroll while ditching Charles Taylor and Murray Waas.