The parent was quite and unnecessarily rude to you but makes a solid point; if you want to compare ape/human intelligence and behaviour then you compare ape/human intelligence and behaviour. DNA analysis is not necessarily a good proxy for behavioural/mental similarity.

Apes are fascinating, interesting and intelligent animals, that personally interest me deeply. As much as I would like to, and tempted to, ascribe human traits to apes, it cannot be done. They simply are not humans; and they little in the way that resembles human like intelligence.

I watched the youtube vid of an Orang using an ipad. Most of the time, the orang had its finger through the bars and the researcher moved the pad around under the Orang's finger. My impression was that the handler was interacting with the Orang moreso than the Orang was interacting with the ipad. I was reminded of researchers in the 70's desperately and unsuccessfully trying to teach chimps sign language. Inspite decades of patient training and opportunity for discovery, no compelling demonstration of capabilities for anything even remotely resembling the richness and structure of human language has occurred. That the best Nim Chimpsky could do was "Give orange me give eat orange me eat orange give me eat orange give me you.". If that is language, then I'm a monkey's uncle.

Childish threats like this, only too common, only reinforce the basis of my scepticism

When climate science community, and the IPCC and the activists and nutters in close orbit raise their game, and stop acting like cargo cult doomsday evangelists, and dramatically improve their professional conduct and the multitude of problems and limitations and conflicts of interest within their various institutions, only then can they expect broad support and respect.

Should your threat ever be realised, I'll stand by my convictions and the mental processes and methods by which I arrived at them. Should it turn out that my present, provisional rejection on the CAGW hypothesis and the recommended mitigation remedy turns out to be false, I'll stand by my convictions and the mental processes and methods by which I arrived at them.

The in-tribe is in mortal peril; an overarching moral duty supercedes all other considerations. Death to the infidel that works against the in-tribe. Echo's of history.

There are two separate issues at work here.

One is essentially the Broken Window Fallacy, the one I was commenting on.

The second, which you have correctly identified, is how we as a community assist and support those who suddenly find themselves redundant and unemployed/underemployed. Although this has not happened to me personally, yet; I know a few, some quite close to me, who have found themselves in this difficult situation. In my case, I live in a jurisdiction with strong social welfare programmes,and I strongly support the continuation of this system; inspite of its limitations. But hanging onto past practices and creating make-work schemes is no solution; it may put money in peoples pockets, but they are still essentially, unemployed/underemployed.

Whatever.

I provide you a reasonable answer, and your reply is to yell and bluster and claim most doubters are stupid nutjobs. Maybe I didn't provide you a precise example that fits your criteria; big deal; a threat is a threat; whether or not it is specifically targeted at a given individual or a broader group : but you seem to think there is a difference; this just reflects quite poorly upon your own morals. Look at your own torrid emotional state, and the tenor of the posts that surround this issue. You trying to imply that no concensus believer has experienced the impulse to threaten someone, nor given voice to that impulse? That there are no unhinged activists out there on your side of the debate? Maybe it is you who is the stupid one in this conversation.

But keep on carrying on the way you are, it is quite entertaining; watching an arrogant zealot such as yourself froth and fume; and yet claim in the same gasp that you have a better handle on reality than myself.

Yeah and so what?

One person not doing a redundant/unnecessary job is an opportunity for that one person to find another way to productively contribute to the community.

Bemoaning job loses in areas of progress and innovation? Lets bemoan the how computers superseded the profession of clerk.

What part of my post, when I said "I could point out to you that ugly hate inciting rhetoric flows both ways...but what would that achieve[?]"

If you insist, on playing this game, here is my one and only contribution. http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/society-and-culture/the-dangers-of-boneheaded-beliefs-20110602-1fijg.html Choice quote: "...forcibly tattooed on their bodies.".

Was trying to find a piece on SMH suggests that we should be gassed with Co2. Nice.

That's all I could be bothered with at this time. But I've made my point which I made before - the ugly invective flows both ways and I condemn it from all; polite society indeed. Many people acting like feral children in the school yard. I condemn all this behaviour. I condemn the noose stunt you included above (first time I have seen it). All sceptics I know feel the same way.

If you wish to continue to maintain the conceit that sceptics are evil, immoral non-people. Go ahead; I suspect I could not convince you otherwise. I am sure it is convenient for you to view sceptics this way, because it makes it easier for you to nurture your contempt and prejudices towards people you disagree with

Did you bother trying to find out the full story here, you you just mindlessly accept what is fed to you?

Firstly, death threats are not M.O. of sceptics as you insist on presenting and demonizing those who disagree with you, in fact overwhelming majority sceptics condemn this sort of conduct.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/death-threats-are-never-ok-but-for-those-without-morals-they-can-be-a-useful-pr-tool/

I could point out to you that ugly hate inciting rhetoric flows both ways, including appalling examples within the recently liberated emails, but what would that achieve. Just a childish pointless he-said, she-said argument. Lets work on the assumption that most of us are decent respectful people. But reading some of the highly aggressive comments here one wonders about the mental fragility of some obviously emotionally disturbed fellow /.ers.

Finally, the death threats were not even death threats. The language is appalling and threatening and not acceptable, but it is not a death threat.

http://joannenova.com.au/2011/06/to-a-climate-scientist-swearing-equals-a-death-threat-no-wonder-these-guys-cant-predict-the-weather/

But playing fast and loose with evidence is what climate science is all about hey?

I posit you are merely projecting your fantasy about how the institution of science functions; I can recognise it because a while ago I also assumed these things. Nothing you assert above is an accurate characterization of what is really occurring. The fraternity is not competitive at all; they are highly insular and they won't suffer anyone who strays from message poorly. Anyone who gives concession or consideration to opposing ideas is smacked down by their peers. Those who lose their religion, like Dr Judith Curry, or never believed in the first place like Lindzen, or who presently subscribe to a more watered down version like the Pielke's are marginalised; and teased like it was a schoolyard; without consideration for their professional competencies or what they have to offer the debate.

You say I am counter productive. In what way? How is demanding a higher standard of professional rigour and conduct in any way counter productive? Or does it just rile you that I repudiate all the overly emotional and manipulative messages about moral challenges for a generation, and saving the human race, and all that and refuse to climb onto your bandwagon?

I admit no such thing. I merely point out that this is a popular opinion out there. The fact that I acknowledge it does not mean I accept it. In fact I expressly repudiate it in my above comment.

There is no evidence to support the external hack hypothesis. An insider disgruntled with how their institution is behaving is also a possibility. This is the one I provisionally subscribe too; but I do not have a strong belief either way; insufficient evidence.

And here's me thinking that most scientists bought into the philosophy that science is antagonistic. Your claim that it is non-factual is easily repudiated by looking at the emails. Some of the more circumspect scientists in their emails privately admit to one another that their critics have strong valid points but then the group proceeds to plough though such legitimate concerns with a thorough, substance-less, smack down; shouting them down and ignoring them.

No it does not, because in my experience this notion of act now before it is too late is always an attempt manipulate another person into doing something circumscribing the tedium of comprehensive analysis and informed consent. Think then act; that is the order of things; not act then retrospect. I refuse to climb onto any such bandwagon; I refuse to acknowledge this notion that outside of incredibly rapid, dire physical situations, where the threat is real and imminent and patently obvious, like a crippled plane falling out of the sky, that the notion that it is somehow too late to stop and think things through is no longer an option. If this is your thing, so be it. I won't hold it against you.

Your point is valid. If the work output is significant and accurate. And that by virtue of being a jerk does not invalidate their work output.

Yet I have no interest in taking on face value output of anyone that stifles free inquiry and reasonable criticism; but I have no issue with folk who are comfortable operating under such conditions. Climate science is very clannish. I guess you could argue that it has come to this because of the way their 'detractors' have behaved; throwing rocks at their venerable institution. Firstly I don't buy this argument; there is supporting evidence for this; just hearsay. And secondly, having worked in various positions in professional institutions, including positions of leadership, it is simply, in my experience, counter productive to confront constant criticism and hostility and ineptitude with reciprocating the same.

I know right now my above post plays the man and not the game. This is a broad topic, and I personally think it is fine to scrutinize how a institution functions as well as it's output and I've personally never had a problem with receiving critical scrutiny on my professional conduct myself. And this is one of the key takeaways from the email archive. As for the game itself I have many misgivings. Broadly my own position is that I accept the AGW hypothesis and I accept that decarbonisation of our economy is both good and inevitable probably within my own lifetime, but I reject CAGW and the resultant moral panic and constant press to act quickly before it is too late.

"Having doubts is scientifically valid"

Except that this is not the content of the emails. The emails show gross unprofessional conduct. They should adults, acting, consistently and frequently, like out of control children. The show people whom we entrust; thinking uncritically and aggressively shouting down anyone who has the temerity to stray from the party line. They show that the institution is fundamentally and hopelessly broken and the rhetoric, including your own, has strayed significantly away from what any objective observer would characterise as sound scientific inquiry.

Your post, with its aggressive and unnecessary invective and school-yard tone is at least consistent with the tone of language revealed in the emails and around this discussion in general. But keep on carrying on like delinquent know-it-all child if you must. It only serves to reinforce doubts that the institutions that we as a civilization have commissioned to explore the CAGW hypothesis are actually up to the task.

And here's me thinking it is because cost per Kg to LEO is between $5,000-$10,000 : and that is for non man-rated cargo. So the cost to get someone into LEO in their birthday suit, let alone anywhere interesting like an established moon base, currently exceeds the average total asset holdings of most first world citizens.

But it's the politicians fault; its their fault the planet is dying and Armageddon is nearly upon us, it's their fault that we have not colonized space. Rabble rabble rabble.

Q: Guess who killed the Apollo programme? A: US citizenry not the politicians. The programme was deeply unpopular. Tom Lehrer's sentiment represented broad public opinion at the time:

"what is it that will make it possible to spend 20 billion dollars of your money to put some clown on the moon? well, S good old american know-how, that's what. as provided by good old americans like dr. wernher von braun."

If you knew what sort of projects I've architected and delivered, I'm sure you'd be a little embarrassed with your last comment. But feel free to go off half-cocked and assume, without any data that you must be the most intelligent person in the rroom. Your attitude to both me and the other poster tell me all I need to know about how you conduct yourself professionally and allow me surmise with some confidence your capacity to run an engineering effort.

Excellent post.

The moment you started ad-homing the parent and calling him a "terrible developer", you diminished your argument and damaged your own credibility.

The parent was criticising the a certain engineering philosophy with XML, and asserting that the complexity of XML is disproportionate to the benefits it delivers and that some poorly-defined aesthetic ideal has rail-roaded typical/pragmatic software engineering goals - such as being able to deliver a working, maintainable and supportable solution in a timely fashion. instead of defending and advocating the XML way you decided attack the parent with baseless accusations about his/her professional competency. You lose.