Marxist Professors Are Gift to Climate Skeptics: Kevin Hassett
Eric Gisin
Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the University of East Anglia
manipulated data and conspired to corrupt the peer-review process has been very bad news for those
hoping to enact laws to limit greenhouse gas emissions.
A December poll by CBS News and the New York Times found that only 37 percent of Americans now
think global warming is a very serious problem and should be one of the highest priorities for
government leaders, a whopping 15 percentage point drop since 2007. While the poll report
attributes the drop to the economic decline during the intervening two years, it's safe to assume
the scandal known as Climategate contributed to the change in public perception.
Such statistics surely are frustrating for climate scientists. The vast majority of them assert
that the stolen e- mails did nothing to upend the balance of the literature, which still tilts
heavily toward a consensus that warming is a big, man-made problem.
The public's skepticism toward the scientists is part of a bigger problem, one that threatens the
fabric of our culture. Academe has been so politicized, and so radically disconnected from the
population, that ordinary citizens no longer trust anything that it produces -- even science.
The sad fact is that explicit or implicit political litmus tests are far more important than
science at universities and so-called peer-reviewed journals. Universities may pay lip service to
"diversity," but diversity of thought is taboo.
Damning Survey
A 2007 survey of more than 1,400 professors by sociologists Neil Gross of Harvard University and
Solon Simmons of George Mason University is as damning an indictment of an organization as you are
ever likely to see.
The authors compiled the political affiliation and beliefs of the professors, who were asked to
identify themselves along a spectrum from very liberal to very conservative. Across all fields, 44
percent identified themselves as liberal or very liberal, while 9.2 percent identified themselves
as conservative or very conservative.
Strikingly, the data were even more tilted in the physical and biological sciences. There, 45.2
percent of professors identified themselves as liberal, while only 8 percent said they were
conservative.
The authors dug deeper than many previous studies and established some startling findings.
In the social sciences, 24 percent of professors identified themselves as liberal "radicals" and 18
percent as Marxists. Only 4.9 percent of social scientists identified themselves as "conservative."
Marxists Everywhere
So there are almost five times as many self-identified liberal radicals on our faculties, and more
than three times as many Marxists as there are conservatives. Last I checked, Marxism has been
utterly discredited. Yet there are still Marxists everywhere, poisoning the minds of our children.
Conservatives, on the other hand, are a rarity.
While there isn't enough data to address the question, it is safe to assume that no other
profession is so tilted. In a society about evenly split between liberals and conservatives,
achieving such a bias requires serious effort. It doesn't happen by accident.
If you want to run conservatives out, you need to discourage dissertations that might reach
conservative conclusions. You need to shun young students if their work questions liberal
orthodoxy. You need to control the academic journals, rejecting papers submitted by identifiable
conservatives.
Political Bias
You need to celebrate work that supports the political bias of Democrats. If your research shows
that higher minimum wages are terrific, an endowed chair is yours for the taking. Question whether
a higher minimum wage might cause higher unemployment, and find your place on the bread line.
For years, I have watched the economic community act this way. The hacked East Anglia e-mails
confirm that exactly this type of conspiracy is in place. They show climate experts plotting how to
keep the lid on research that didn't support the prevailing view on global warming. In one e-mail,
Michael Mann of Penn State University proposed boycotting an academic journal because it had
published an article that provided evidence contrary to global warming canon.
Small wonder that our academic system can no longer claim the authority necessary to drive policy.
The distrust that the academic community has rightly earned is devastating for society. We have
lost the only institution that could deliver the widely acknowledged facts upon which rational
policy could be based.
Fire Political Professors
If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is time for radical reform,
starting with the elimination of tenure. When professors abandon science and take up politics, ask
them to leave.
Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative action for conservatives.
While it is hard to say exactly how many conservatives it might take to ease concerns of bias, a
safe place to start might be to make sure you have more conservatives than Marxists.
Finally, the spirit of open debate should be assiduously enforced, even on issues such as climate.
Universities should teach students how to think, not what to believe. Debate is a necessary part of
that process.
Such reforms are, of course, unlikely. So you can bet that policies will continue to fail if they
rely on faith in science.
(Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a
Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the
2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
Ouroboros Rex
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amjn_0feDpcM
>
> Commentary by Kevin Hassett
>
> Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
> University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
> the peer-review process
Lie.
tunderbar
Hey arsehole, what university do you work at again?
Fred Williams
> Fire Political Professors
>
> If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is time
> for radical reform, starting with the elimination of tenure. When
> professors abandon science and take up politics, ask them to leave.
>
So becoming a professor means you may have no political opinions? Or is it
that people on the left are not allowed to have political opinions?
I fact wasn't it Pol Pot who tried to kill off the educated people.
> Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative
> action for conservatives.
Right. They should only hire Nazis I suppose, and from the "better
families," no doubt.
What you need to think about is why the more educated people all turn to
the left, and why the socialist governments all make a big deal out of
educating their masses, while educational standards are so low in the U.S.
and far too many people believe that Evolution is fiction. Uneducated
people are far easier to control.
--
Regards,
Fred
(remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)
Fred Williams
Trying to intimidate the truth tellers. That's an escalation of aggression
on Usenet. Times must be getting tough as the economy fails.
Marvin the Martian
> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amjn_0feDpcM
>
> Commentary by Kevin Hassett
Good thoughts. We need to re-establish academic integrity rules; for
students as well as professors.
Back in the 60s, the commies fronted "Anti-War" groups that demanded
commies be added to the faculty of universities to give "both sides".
Once the commies had their idiots in faculty positions, they purged the
universities of all rational thought. If you're not a far left professor,
you'd better hide that fact.
Yes. Get the Marxist out of the universities and the congress and the
White House are all good goals. Good luck with that. Once Marxist get
into power, it is the devils work to get them out.
Marvin the Martian
> Eric Gisin wrote:
>
>
>> Fire Political Professors
>>
>> If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is
>> time for radical reform, starting with the elimination of tenure. When
>> professors abandon science and take up politics, ask them to leave.
>>
> So becoming a professor means you may have no political
opinions?
In science, a professor's political opinions shouldn't ever be known.
> Or
> is it
> that people on the left are not allowed to have political opinions?
Since the universities were purged of people on the right, this question
is funny. Yes, if the left's idea of opinions is to purge all right wing
thought, then they've lost the right to have an opinion. Your right to
swing your fist ends at my nose, and all that.
> I fact wasn't it Pol Pot who tried to kill off the educated
people.
Yes he did. Seems he was just another genocidal leftist.
>> Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative
>> action for conservatives.
>
> Right. They should only hire Nazis I suppose, and from the
"better
> families," no doubt.
Nazis killed 6 million. Leftist killed 83 million. You do the math!
But your comment is a silly fallacy, unless like most leftist you think
that "Nazi" means "anyone who is opposed to Marxism".
>
> What you need to think about is why the more educated people all
turn
> to
> the left,
60 years ago, before we allowed communist into universities as professors
in the name of "debate", the argument could have been made "why the more
educated people all turn to the right".
This argument fails. The reason being that the leftist use the
universities as indoctrination centers, and don't graduate students who
are openly of the right wing.
> and why the socialist governments all make a big deal out of
> educating their masses,
Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin all ran education centers. You either learned the
party line, or you got a bullet in the back of the head.
Government controlled education is a wonder tool for political
indoctrination.
>while educational standards are so low in the
> U.S. and far too many people believe that Evolution is fiction.
Creationism is fiction. However, the Christians aren't using it to make a
slave out of us, like the communist are with their Anthropogenic global
warming fraud.
> Uneducated people are far easier to control.
And if you DON'T understand thermo, and you DON'T understand equilibrium
constants, and you DON'T understand simple logic, then you're sure to
fall for appeals to authority and commie junk science.
erschro...@gmail.com
Well, as John Stuart Mill said, "Conservatives are not necessarily
stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives." Since university
professors are usually not stupid people, what do you expect?
>
> Strikingly, the data were even more tilted in the physical and biological sciences. There, 45.2
> percent of professors identified themselves as liberal, while only 8 percent said they were
> conservative.
>
> The authors dug deeper than many previous studies and established some startling findings.
>
> In the social sciences, 24 percent of professors identified themselves as liberal "radicals" and 18
> percent as Marxists. Only 4.9 percent of social scientists identified themselves as "conservative."
>
> Marxists Everywhere
>
> So there are almost five times as many self-identified liberal radicals on our faculties, and more
> than three times as many Marxists as there are conservatives.
See above. Mill anticipated this.
>Last I checked, Marxism has been
> utterly discredited.
Define Marxism.
>Yet there are still Marxists everywhere, poisoning the minds of our children.
> Conservatives, on the other hand, are a rarity.
Yeah, they just dominate the airwaves and the internet, the Republican
party, and the South.
>
> While there isn't enough data to address the question, it is safe to assume that no other
> profession is so tilted. In a society about evenly split between liberals and conservatives,
> achieving such a bias requires serious effort. It doesn't happen by accident.
>
Most talk show hosts are conservative. Where's your outcry over that?
> If you want to run conservatives out, you need to discourage dissertations that might reach
> conservative conclusions. You need to shun young students if their work questions liberal
> orthodoxy. You need to control the academic journals, rejecting papers submitted by identifiable
> conservatives.
>
> Political Bias
>
> You need to celebrate work that supports the political bias of Democrats. If your research shows
> that higher minimum wages are terrific, an endowed chair is yours for the taking. Question whether
> a higher minimum wage might cause higher unemployment, and find your place on the bread line.
>
> For years, I have watched the economic community act this way. The hacked East Anglia e-mails
> confirm that exactly this type of conspiracy is in place. They show climate experts plotting how to
> keep the lid on research that didn't support the prevailing view on global warming. In one e-mail,
> Michael Mann of Penn State University proposed boycotting an academic journal because it had
> published an article that provided evidence contrary to global warming canon.
>
> Small wonder that our academic system can no longer claim the authority necessary to drive policy.
> The distrust that the academic community has rightly earned is devastating for society. We have
> lost the only institution that could deliver the widely acknowledged facts upon which rational
> policy could be based.
>
> Fire Political Professors
>
Fire political talk show hosts!
> If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is time for radical reform,
> starting with the elimination of tenure. When professors abandon science and take up politics, ask
> them to leave.
>
> Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative action for conservatives.
> While it is hard to say exactly how many conservatives it might take to ease concerns of bias, a
> safe place to start might be to make sure you have more conservatives than Marxists.
>
> Finally, the spirit of open debate should be assiduously enforced, even on issues such as climate.
> Universities should teach students how to think, not what to believe. Debate is a necessary part of
> that process.
>
> Such reforms are, of course, unlikely. So you can bet that policies will continue to fail if they
> rely on faith in science.
>
> (Kevin Hassett, director of economic-policy studies at the American Enterprise Institute, is a
> Bloomberg News columnist. He was an adviser to Republican Senator John McCain of Arizona in the
> 2008 presidential election. The opinions expressed are his own.)
I bet the AEI is mostly conservative too. Where's Hassett's outrage
over that?
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:52:21 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:
> > Eric Gisin wrote:
>
> >> Fire Political Professors
>
> >> If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is
> >> time for radical reform, starting with the elimination of tenure. When
> >> professors abandon science and take up politics, ask them to leave.
>
> > So becoming a professor means you may have no political
>
> opinions?
>
> In science, a professor's political opinions shouldn't ever be known.
>
To some, evolution is a political opinion. To some, global warming
is. To some, CFCs-ozone layer is. To some, age of the earth is.
> > Or
> > is it
> > that people on the left are not allowed to have political opinions?
>
> Since the universities were purged of people on the right,
Were they rounded up and sent to concentration camps? No, that's what
right-wingers do.
>this question
> is funny. Yes, if the left's idea of opinions is to purge all right wing
> thought, then they've lost the right to have an opinion. Your right to
> swing your fist ends at my nose, and all that.
>
> > I fact wasn't it Pol Pot who tried to kill off the educated
>
> people.
>
> Yes he did. Seems he was just another genocidal leftist.
>
>
>
> >> Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative
> >> action for conservatives.
>
> > Right. They should only hire Nazis I suppose, and from the
> "better
> > families," no doubt.
>
> Nazis killed 6 million. Leftist killed 83 million. You do the math!
>
Nazis killed a lot more than 6 million. That's just Jews in camps.
There were millions of others in the camps, plus millions killed in
the war.
> But your comment is a silly fallacy, unless like most leftist you think
> that "Nazi" means "anyone who is opposed to Marxism".
No, Nazi is an extreme right-winger. Like you.
>
>
>
>
>
> > What you need to think about is why the more educated people all
> turn
> > to
> > the left,
>
> 60 years ago, before we allowed communist into universities as professors
> in the name of "debate", the argument could have been made "why the more
> educated people all turn to the right".
>
> This argument fails. The reason being that the leftist use the
> universities as indoctrination centers, and don't graduate students who
> are openly of the right wing.
Or perhaps right-wingers are just stupid.
>
> > and why the socialist governments all make a big deal out of
> > educating their masses,
>
> Pol Pot, Mao and Stalin all ran education centers. You either learned the
> party line, or you got a bullet in the back of the head.
>
> Government controlled education is a wonder tool for political
> indoctrination.
>
> >while educational standards are so low in the
> > U.S. and far too many people believe that Evolution is fiction.
>
> Creationism is fiction. However, the Christians aren't using it to make a
> slave out of us, like the communist are with their Anthropogenic global
> warming fraud.
Oh, you're such a slave. You're in shackles, working the fields, and
your children can be sold.
To use "slave" this way is like using "Holocaust" for trivial reasons.
>
> > Uneducated people are far easier to control.
>
> And if you DON'T understand thermo, and you DON'T understand equilibrium
Well, that leaves you out. And you wonder why right-wingers don't
graduate?
Derek Gee
news:hhg0s...@news2.newsguy.com...
Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the infamous
"Hockey Stick" graph, and he only got caught when the US Congress subpoenaed
his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
(only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their self-described
"trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_says_sceptic/
Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many have
financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).
D
Catoni
Are you kidding ? The far left has been working to get in the schools
and universities since the 1920'/30's. It's no secret that in order to
"build socialism" you need to get hold of the education system and get
the kids when they're young.
"Dear Leader's" North Korea. Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union.
Communist China.
The nazis/fascists were well aware of this as well. Just look at
Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. The education system uinder
total control to brainwash the students.
Look at the Islamic totalitarian theocracy in Iran. Religious
totalitarians do the same as the communists and fascists.....
brainwash the kids in school, and infiltrate and control the media
It's one of the prime tools of the totalitarian way of control. If
you can get the media and the schools, you can brainwash and control
the thinking of the majority of the ordinary people..
Any totalitarian system or group that tries to build a totalitarian
society has certain targets to first get control of.
One is the media..... the other is the education system.
Fred Williams
> On Wed, 30 Dec 2009 13:52:21 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:
>
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Fire Political Professors
>>>
>>> If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is
>>> time for radical reform, starting with the elimination of tenure. When
>>> professors abandon science and take up politics, ask them to leave.
>>>
>> So becoming a professor means you may have no political
> opinions?
>
> In science, a professor's political opinions shouldn't ever be known.
>
Freedom of thought and speech are what you're supposed to be supporting.
>> Or
>> is it
>> that people on the left are not allowed to have political opinions?
>
> Since the universities were purged of people on the right,
Never happened.
>> I fact wasn't it Pol Pot who tried to kill off the educated
> people.
>
> Yes he did. Seems he was just another genocidal leftist.
>
But you're advocating the same thing here, just removing them instead of
killing them. It's only a matter of degree.
>>> Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative
>>> action for conservatives.
>>
>> Right. They should only hire Nazis I suppose, and from the
> "better
>> families," no doubt.
>
> Nazis killed 6 million. Leftist killed 83 million. You do the math!
The Nazis killed 6 million *Jews.* They also killed 7 million non-Jews for
a total of 13 million. The leftists killed no where near that many... But
Dubyuh managed over a million in Iraq and probably a lesser number in
Afghanistan. Obama continues the tradition.
Try reading about real history for a change instead of trying to rewrite it
to suit Washington.
Fred Williams
> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> news:hhg0s...@news2.newsguy.com...
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>>> http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amjn_0feDpcM
>>>
>>> Commentary by Kevin Hassett
>>>
>>> Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
>>> University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
>>> the peer-review process
>>
>> Lie.
>
> Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the
> infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and he only got caught when the US Congress
> subpoenaed
> his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
> (only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their
> self-described "trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.
>
Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked from
up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a scientist
referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
> Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many
> have financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).
>
If you want to follow the money, look at who profits from petro-chemical
sales and by how much.
Fred Williams
> On Dec 30, 12:52 pm, Fred Williams <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>> Eric Gisin wrote:
>> > Fire Political Professors
>>
>> > If Americans can no longer trust anything, even science, then it is
>> > time for radical reform, starting with the elimination of tenure. When
>> > professors abandon science and take up politics, ask them to leave.
>>
>> So becoming a professor means you may have no political opinions? Or is
>> it that people on the left are not allowed to have political opinions?
>> I fact wasn't it Pol Pot who tried to kill off the educated people.
>>
>> > Second, universities and journals should engage in informal affirmative
>> > action for conservatives.
>>
>> Right. They should only hire Nazis I suppose, and from the "better
>> families," no doubt.
>>
>> What you need to think about is why the more educated people all turn to
>> the left, and why the socialist governments all make a big deal out of
>> educating their masses, while educational standards are so low in the
>> U.S. and far too many people believe that Evolution is fiction.
>> Uneducated people are far easier to control.
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>> Fred
>> (remove FFFf from my email address to reply by email)
>
> Are you kidding ?
No.
> The far left has been working to get in the schools
> and universities since the 1920'/30's. It's no secret that in order to
> "build socialism" you need to get hold of the education system and get
> the kids when they're young.
In order to do any education or brainwashing that is true. But you have to
notice also that the more educated people are, the more they lean to the
left.
> "Dear Leader's" North Korea. Lenin and Stalin's Soviet Union.
> Communist China.
These are widely differing systems. There's a lot of difference between
Stalin, who was actually right wing and betrayed the revolution, and Mao,
for instance.
> The nazis/fascists were well aware of this as well. Just look at
> Hitler's Germany and Mussolini's Italy. The education system uinder
> total control to brainwash the students.
But they were right wing.
> Look at the Islamic totalitarian theocracy in Iran.
I strongly urge the separation of church and state, even in the U.S.
> Religious
> totalitarians do the same as the communists and fascists.....
> brainwash the kids in school, and infiltrate and control the media
> It's one of the prime tools of the totalitarian way of control. If
> you can get the media and the schools, you can brainwash and control
> the thinking of the majority of the ordinary people..
That much is true. It is also true of teaching the truth. People learn
faster when they are young. Getting children when they are young is a
simple fact of education whether you are teaching lies or truth. So it
doesn't mean that you are teaching lies simply because you're teaching
children.
And taking control of education is what all governments do. Leftist
governments, like Cuba, have higher literacy rates and greater access to
education. They are actually far more democratic when it comes to education
than the U.S. where the vast majority of college students have to come from
rich families.
>
> Any totalitarian system or group that tries to build a totalitarian
> society has certain targets to first get control of.
> One is the media..... the other is the education system.
And they call for all opposing views to be eliminated from the educational
system, which is exactly what you're doing in this thread.
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hhg0s...@news2.newsguy.com...
>
> > Eric Gisin wrote:
> >>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amjn_0feDpcM
>
> >> Commentary by Kevin Hassett
>
> >> Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
> >> University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
> >> the peer-review process
>
> > Lie.
>
> Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the infamous
> "Hockey Stick" graph,
National Academy of Sciences said you're wrong.
>and he only got caught when the US Congress subpoenaed
> his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
> (only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their self-described
> "trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.
Is lying so habitual with you that you don't know it's wrong?
>
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/12/17/russian_data_cherrypicked_say...
>
> Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many have
> financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).
>
Yes, scientists get paid. That invalidates all science! All
medicine, all engineering, everything.
What an idiot.
> D
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:27:49 -0400, Fred Williams
Was he liberal? What "liberal" positions did he take?
> Pol Pot killed millions of his own countrymen.
Same questions.
> Mao killed 20 million of his own countrymen.
Same questions.
> And your "million" in Iraq is simply a bald faced lie.
OK, a few hundred thousand.
> Seems you're the one that needs to re read your little history books
> shill.
erschro...@gmail.com
wrote:
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
>
>
>
> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
> >Derek Gee wrote:
>
> >> "Ouroboros Rex" <i...@casual.com> wrote in message
> >>news:hhg0s...@news2.newsguy.com...
> >>> Eric Gisin wrote:
> >>>>http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601039&sid=amjn_0feDpcM
>
> >>>> Commentary by Kevin Hassett
>
> >>>> Dec. 21 (Bloomberg) -- The revelation that climate scientists at the
> >>>> University of East Anglia manipulated data and conspired to corrupt
> >>>> the peer-review process
>
> >>> Lie.
>
> >> Truth! Dr. Mann lied when he cherry picked the data to create the
> >> infamous "Hockey Stick" graph, and he only got caught when the US Congress
> >> subpoenaed
> >> his data. This same bunch lied again when dealing with the Arctic data
> >> (only using 25% of it), and they lied when they applied their
> >> self-described "trick" to hide the decline in global temperatures.
>
> > Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
> >truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked from
> >up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a scientist
> >referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
> >thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>
> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes.
> Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap.\
Liar.
> The hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit.
Validated by the National Academy of Sciences. So you're a liar.
> And you still have nothing more than half assed theory supporting
> manmade warming.
We have 36 national science academies, every scientific organization,
over 90% of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate
science researchers. You have bloggers, right-wing columnists, and
your own paranoia.
>
> >> Why? Follow the money! All these scientists live off grants and many
> >> have financial interests in carbon trading exchanges (e.g. Al Gore).
>
> > If you want to follow the money, look at who profits from petro-chemical
> >sales and by how much.
>
> The big evil oil companies stand to profit enormously from fools like
> yourself as well:
>
> http://www.globalmotors.net/exxon-mobil-is-developing-a-new-battery-t...
>
> http://www.greentechnolog.com/industry/bp/
>
> http://www.greencarcongress.com/2006/12/conocophillips_.html
>
> You idiots actually think that the big oil companies are just going to
> dry up and blow away but they are the ones developing your precious
> power cells, renewable energy as well as solar and wind.
> Looks like before long you'll have to invent yourself another bad guy
> to hate.
tunderbar
Let the purging of the intelligencia begin.
Marvin the Martian
> Let the purging of the intelligencia begin.
We had a purge of the intelligencia back during the Vietnam war. The
communist purged the real scientist out of the universities, and put in
their propagandist non-scientists and political advocates.
What is being proposed is to purge the lying America hating commie
bastards out of the universities.
No more lying about the data to conn the US out of trillions.
No more using Peer review to hide their lies.
No more commie thugs threatening to physically attack real scientist who
are exposing their lies.
I M @ good guy
The tip of the iceberg you don't see;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,809656,00.html
http://www.atimes.com/koreas/CE23Dg02.html
Fred Williams
> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
>>truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
>>from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
>>scientist
>>referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The whole
>>thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>
>
> Bullshit. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes.
> Tree ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap.
> The hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit.
> And you still have nothing more than half assed theory supporting
> manmade warming.
Just decades of data from all around the world, and models that predict
increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc. One
faked media event doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
warming is man made and getting worse faster than even the scientists
predicted a few years ago.
Marvin the Martian
> First Post wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
>>>Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
>>>truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
>>>from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
>>>scientist
>>>referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
>>>whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>>
>>
>> Bullshit. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
>> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
>> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
>> ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The hockey
>> stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still have nothing
>> more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.
>
> Just decades of data from all around the world,
The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man made
while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is a post
hoc fallacy.
Please don't try and rebut with the "this has never happened before"
argument. For one, that is still a post hoc fallacy. Secondly, we know it
did happen before because the data shows this and the AGW frauds were
fretting over the fact that it happened before and among themselves they
admit they have no way to hide that fact.
>and models that
> predict
> increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc.
1) All the AGW models failed to predict the last ten years. Scientist
call models that don't predict a "rejected hypothesis". That's science
speak for "Well, that was bullshit and a waste of time".
2) The "disaster" thing is an "appeal to consequences" fallacy.
> One faked media event
Got proof it was faked? Even the people who had their e-mails exposed
admit that the e-mails are really theirs. Seems you're lying. Too early
for you to murder your credibility like that.
> doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
> warming is man made
1) Circular logic. Man made global warming is that which is to be proved.
2) Even the now discredited liars at the IPCC can't call man made global
warming a reality. Only you and Al Gore claim it is "reality". There is
no basis for this claim. I know why Al Gore is lying; he is a commie
stooge who was caught taking a $100,000 in Chinese Red Army Money in the
Buddhist Nuns scandal. (Gore belongs in prison for that...) The Chinese
Red Army stands to make trillions of dollars if they can get Americans to
cut their own throats with this Global warming scam. Now, why are you
lying?
3) The argument for man made global warming consists of:
a) Two correlation proves causation fallacies
(1)CO2 increased and temperature increased, ergo CO2
caused warming
(2) We produced CO2 and atmospheric CO2 increased,
ergo we caused the CO2.
b) A neglectful induction fallacy.
(1) ignoring that solar cycle has a stronger correlation
than than CO2 to global temperature.
(2) ignoring that climate change has happened many
times in the past when man couldn't be the cause.
(3) Ignoring that past warm periods have been periods
of prosperity, not disaster.
And that's just to start.
> and getting worse faster than even the scientists
> predicted a few years ago.
Yes. The alleged "scientist" said we'd be dead by now. But they've
revised this prediction: it's going to be much worse.
I M @ good guy
<fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
Fred will NOT be able to provide references
to the greatest floods, the most hurricanes, the
highest temperatures in the last few years, and
there is not a year warmer than 1998.
Fred Williams
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:
>
>> First Post wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
>>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>
>>>>Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
>>>>truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
>>>>from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
>>>>scientist
>>>>referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
>>>>whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>>>
>>>
>>> Bullshit. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
>>> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
>>> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
>>> ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The hockey
>>> stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still have nothing
>>> more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.
>>
>> Just decades of data from all around the world,
>
> The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man made
> while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is a post
> hoc fallacy.
>
Not at all. There has never been a change like this before. We have
warmed the planet in 50 years what nature has taken tens of thousands of
years to do in the past. The rate of species extinction is high. Before
this is over we will have lost most of the species on the planet. It's a
major extinction even like the Earth hasn't seem in 65 million years.
Marvin the Martian
> Marvin the Martian wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:
>>
>>> First Post wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
>>>> <fr...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
>>>>>truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry
>>>>>picked from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word
>>>>>"trick" was a scientist
>>>>>referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
>>>>>whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
>>>> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
>>>> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
>>>> ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The
>>>> hockey stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still
>>>> have nothing more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.
>>>
>>> Just decades of data from all around the world,
>>
>> The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man
>> made while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is
>> a post hoc fallacy.
>>
> Not at all. There has never been a change like this before.
Not true. There have been several changes like this before. And even if
it was true, your argument is a post hoc fallacy.
So what you have is a post hoc fallacy based on a false premise.
> We have
> warmed the planet in 50 years
Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
trivial amount is what is to be proved.
> what nature has taken tens of thousands of
> years to do in the past.
Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're in
one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the medieval
warm period.
> The rate of species extinction is high.
Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."
And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
during the medieval warm period.
> Before this is over we will have lost most of the species on the planet.
> It's a major extinction even like the Earth hasn't seem in 65 million
> years.
Run for your lives!!!
What you end with is a appeal to fear fallacy.
So, what part of your post wasn't gibberish?
erschro...@gmail.com
> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 09:43:08 -0400, Fred Williams wrote:
> > First Post wrote:
>
> >> On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 10:34:17 -0400, Fred Williams
> >> <f...@frewilliams.FFFfca> wrote:
>
> >>>Lie. This is just another effort by the oil companies to subvert the
> >>>truth. The documents referred to in the "revelation" are cherry picked
> >>>from up to ten years ago when less was known and the word "trick" was a
> >>>scientist
> >>>referring to a clever idea rather than an attempt to deceive. The
> >>>whole thing has no more relevance that your post here on Usenet.
>
> >> Bullshit. It's funny as hell to watcxh you alarmists nutjobs running
> >> uin circvles screaming "lie lie lie" all day as your fake religion of
> >> manmade warming continues to fall apart before your very eyes. Tree
> >> ring data was found to be cherrypicked and ultimately crap. The hockey
> >> stick graph has been proven to be bullsahit. And you still have nothing
> >> more than half assed theory supporting manmade warming.
>
> > Just decades of data from all around the world,
>
> The data shows that climate changes. To say that THIS change is man made
> while ignoring that there have been similar changes in the past is a post
> hoc fallacy.
Like "to say people are dying of AIDS today when they never did
before"?
>
> Please don't try and rebut with the "this has never happened before"
> argument. For one, that is still a post hoc fallacy. Secondly, we know it
> did happen before because the data shows this and the AGW frauds were
> fretting over the fact that it happened before and among themselves they
> admit they have no way to hide that fact.
No they weren't. You lie.
>
> >and models that
> > predict
> > increasing weather disasters and the melting of glaciers etc, etc.
>
> 1) All the AGW models failed to predict the last ten years.
Nobody reached into the future, saw a the PDO change, and fed that
in. Like blaming a stock market model for not predicting Madoff's
scheme.
>Scientist
> call models that don't predict a "rejected hypothesis". That's science
> speak for "Well, that was bullshit and a waste of time".
>
> 2) The "disaster" thing is an "appeal to consequences" fallacy.
>
> > One faked media event
>
> Got proof it was faked? Even the people who had their e-mails exposed
> admit that the e-mails are really theirs. Seems you're lying. Too early
> for you to murder your credibility like that.
>
> > doesn't even begin to counter the reality that global
> > warming is man made
>
> 1) Circular logic. Man made global warming is that which is to be proved.
>
> 2) Even the now discredited liars at the IPCC can't call man made global
> warming a reality.
And 36 national science academies, every scientific organization, 90%
of articles in scientific journals, and 97% of climate researchers.
>Only you and Al Gore claim it is "reality".
And almost all scientists.
>There is
> no basis for this claim. I know why Al Gore is lying; he is a commie
> stooge who was caught taking a $100,000 in Chinese Red Army Money in the
> Buddhist Nuns scandal.
And you're a Nazi stooge who was caught spraying swastikas (if you
want to trade smears).
>(Gore belongs in prison for that...) The Chinese
> Red Army stands to make trillions of dollars if they can get Americans to
> cut their own throats with this Global warming scam. Now, why are you
> lying?
>
> 3) The argument for man made global warming consists of:
> a) Two correlation proves causation fallacies
> (1)CO2 increased and temperature increased, ergo CO2
> caused warming
> (2) We produced CO2 and atmospheric CO2 increased,
> ergo we caused the CO2.
> b) A neglectful induction fallacy.
> (1) ignoring that solar cycle has a stronger correlation
> than than CO2 to global temperature.
Except for the last 50 years, when it has no correlation.
> (2) ignoring that climate change has happened many
> times in the past when man couldn't be the cause.
Logical fallacy. Just because X didn't cause Y in the past does not
mean X cannot cause Y now.
> (3) Ignoring that past warm periods have been periods
> of prosperity, not disaster.
Ignoring that conducting irreversible experiments on our only planet
is stupid.
Fred Williams
Fortunately just because you say so doesn't make anything true.
>
>> We have
>> warmed the planet in 50 years
>
> Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
> trivial amount is what is to be proved.
>
>> what nature has taken tens of thousands of
>> years to do in the past.
>
> Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
> Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're in
> one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the medieval
> warm period.
>
Yes, and slowly over 25,000 years an effect was happening. When things
happen slowly like that species can adapt. When things happen more quickly,
like what we're talking about now, species die off. Man made global warming
is killing off many of the species on this planet. We've created a global
extinction event like the Earth hasn't seen in 65 million years.
>> The rate of species extinction is high.
>
> Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."
>
Species are dying, and it is human caused. The "ergo" was your straw man.
> And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
> during the medieval warm period.
>
No.
Marvin the Martian
Yes. You can always just pretend to be stupid and not understand. Maybe
I'll even believe that you're stupid.
A post hoc fallacy is where you say "A happened before X, therefore A
caused X" without proving that A caused X.
So, in this case A = "A change that happened before" and X= "human CO2
production". So it's exactly a post hoc fallacy.
The only way to show X caused A is to do some physics.
Now, you can continue to pretend to be stupid, or...
>>> We have
>>> warmed the planet in 50 years
>>
>> Circular logic fallacy. That we have warmed the planet more than a
>> trivial amount is what is to be proved.
>>
>>> what nature has taken tens of thousands of years to do in the past.
>>
>> Actually, the ice age, and the warming, started some 25,000 years ago.
>> Data shows that these warming periods have lots of variability. We're
>> in one of those warm periods now, just as the earth was during the
>> medieval warm period.
>>
> Yes, and slowly over 25,000 years an effect was happening. When
things
> happen slowly like that species can adapt. When things happen more
> quickly, like what we're talking about now, species die off. Man made
> global warming is killing off many of the species on this planet.
> We've created a global extinction event like the Earth hasn't seen in 65
> million years.
Again you make with the invalid logic based on a fallacy. The fallacy is
that there has been or few extinctions in the past. The fossil record is
full of extinctions, so that isn't even true. The post hoc fallacy I've
explained before.
>>> The rate of species extinction is high.
>>
>> Appeal to cause fallacy. "Species are dying, ergo it is human caused."
>>
> Species are dying, and it is human caused. The "ergo" was your
straw
> man.
You really have no concept of logic, do you? The ancient Greeks
considered humans having reason made them different than animals. The
fact that the ancient Greeks invented logic and the barbarians all around
them didn't, just reinforced this belief.
You never proved that climate change is causing extinction, or that CO2
causes climate change, or that we caused the CO2 increase.
Poetic Justice
Species died before humans and will die after humans..... So there are
very few if any that humans have killed off.
>> And if the extinction was caused by warming, they would have gone extinct
>> during the medieval warm period.
>>
> No.
>
Polar bears survived past warming but suddenly they are extinct due to man?
Typical Liberal that has zero logic.
--
Fred Williams
There's not any logic to that at all. Whether species have dies before or
after has nothing to do with whether humans have killed any off. That's
like a lawyer in court saying that because people have died before March
27th and because more people have died after March 27th, then my client
couldn't have murdered anyone on March 27th!!! There's just no connection
between the observations and the conclusion. That's a non-sequitur, by the
way.
Poetic Justice
List the ones that are extinct due to human causes.....
--
Poetic Justice
List the ones that are extinct due to human causes.....
Don't forget the human activity that made the species extinct.
--