Loads of papers on our feathered friends

I'm a bit tied up with setting up a new laptop after the display broke on my old one. Well, it wasn't very old but it was out of warranty. Setting up the new notebook will occupy me for most of the rest of the day, so reporting denier weirdness is being put on hold for a few hours. (I checked. There is nothing of note to report in any case. Or not much that I can see.)

Rather than leave you hanging, I went looking for something to tempt the science in you - and found a treasure trove of papers. That is, if you are interested in birds. In particular, if you are interested in the evolution of birds.

Watt a whopper of religious fervour

Anthony Watts criticises Michael Mann for refusing to 'debate' Roy Spencer because not only is Spencer a climate science denier, he is an evolution denier.

Anthony Watts can't tell the difference between science and religion as evidenced by the fact that he thinks this tweet, which is about science, is a comment on religion:

No @foxnews, I'm not interested in "debating" #climatechange & #evolution denier Roy Spencer (sourcewatch.org/index.php?titl…) on your "news" network
— Michael E. Mann (@MichaelEMann) March 25, 2013

Prof Mann mentions only science and expresses the normal reaction from any scientist when asked to 'debate' a science denier.  (Nowhere does Mann mention religion.)

Real Scientists Don't Debate Creationists or Climate Science Deniers

You can just as easily substitute climate science denier for creationist in the following excerpt from an article by Richard Dawkins: (my paragraph breaks and emphasis)

Some time in the 1980s when I was on a visit to the United States, a television station wanted to stage a debate between me and a prominent creationist called, I think, Duane P Gish. I telephoned Stephen Gould for advice.

He was friendly and decisive: "Don't do it."

The point is not, he said, whether or not you would 'win' the debate. Winning is not what the creationists realistically aspire to. For them, it is sufficient that the debate happens at all.

They need the publicity. We don't.

To the gullible public which is their natural constituency, it is enough that their man is seen sharing a platform with a real scientist. "There must be something in creationism, or Dr So-and-So would not have agreed to debate it on equal terms."

Inevitably, when you turn down the invitation you will be accused of cowardice, or of inability to defend your own beliefs. But that is better than supplying the creationists with what they crave: the oxygen of respectability in the world of real science.

Does Anthony Watts deny evolution?

Anthony's knee-jerk reaction to Mann's tweet raises some interesting questions.  It is well known that Anthony Watts denies climate science.  Now we can legitimately ask if he also denies biological science?  I guess so, based on his reaction to the tweet.

Mixed Reaction from the Deniosaurs

There are some quaint comments on Anthony's shock horror article, including quite a few from people who said they can see the point that Mann is making, and others who wonder why Anthony jumped straight to religion when Mann didn't mention religion. (Good question.)

There are, of course, lots of comments from people who didn't bother to evaluate the article and just saw it as an excuse for more Mann-bashing.  One of the weirdest comments came from the 'Good Lord!' Monckton who wants to find some scientific papers on 'intelligent design':

My one question about intelligent design is why there seem to be no scientific papers about it in the reviewed literature. I should be grateful if anyone can help here.

233 comments later, Anthony decided to close the thread because it exposed too many seriously warped ideas held by the members of his nutty fan club.