Re: Bill Nye, the fascist guy

[Ned Ludd]

"Sanford M. Manley" <ans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:nes6s5$cul$1...@dont-email.me...
> On 4/14/2016 6:58 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>
>> "Bill Nye, The Science Guy, revealed he is openly favorable to the idea
>> of jailing ‘global warming’ skeptics at the Hague as “war criminals.”
>> Nye was confronted with environmental activists Robert F. Kennedy’s call
>> to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at the Hague.
>>
>> Nye added, “For me as a taxpayer and voter — the introduction of this
>> extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a
>> public citizen.”
>>
>> Morano also asked Nye about the “chilling effect” of threatening
>> investigations and jail to scientists who dissent on man-made global
>> warming claims.
>>
>> Nye responded: “That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are in
>> extreme doubt about climate change — I think is good.
>>
http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/04/14/bill-nye-the-jail-the-skeptics-guy-nye-entertains-idea-of-jailing-climate-skeptics-for-affecting-my-quality-of-life-exclusive-video/
>>
>> ___
>>
>> Nye is admitting that he literally WANTS scientists to be scared to go
>> public about the things they believe, if they disagree with him.
>>
>> Not evil corporations, he wants Scientists who simply doubt the
>> government’s Global Warming narrative to be literally so scared of
>> persecution by the feds, that they not tell the truth as they see it.
>>
>> Authoritarianism rears it's ugly head once again.
>>
>
> Unacceptable. This is what happens when someone basks in too much public
> adulation. They start shooting their mouth off.
>
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of those jackass anti-vaccine (causes autism)
> dumb shits.
> --
> Sanford
>

It took a while for this to sink in. Do you know what this is?
This is the ultimate expression of Religion. It is killing someone
(or jailing them) for HERESY. This is how they killed Socrates:
Heresy (Blasphemy) and Corruption of Youth. Specifically...
---
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socrates#Trial_and_death
He was, nevertheless, found guilty of both corrupting the minds
of the youth of Athens and of impiety ("not believing in the gods
of the state"),[53] and subsequently sentenced to death by
drinking a mixture containing poison hemlock.
---

About 7 years ago I began posts on how Science has become
more like Religion...
---
Science has become a religion. (Mostly to the drug-addled
Boomers, who are generally crypto-fascists.) And as a religion,
science needs an eschatology - a belief in an imminent end-time.
Voila! - or as Ari used to say, Wallah! We now have Doomers!
Boomer-Doomers, intent on invoking Armageddon to the sixth
decimal place (no! - the six-hundred and sixty-six decimal place)
and the sooner the better.
Ned
---

And 4 years ago I posted this:
---
Science isn't science anymore. It is - in Physics, and Bird Flu
and Climatology and many other areas - more a religion, with tenets
of belief, sectarianism and declarations of heresy and accusations
of 'working for the oil industry' leveled IMMEDIATELY at any
dissention even before reading claims and examining evidence.
Ned
---

The ultimate and clear sign of the failure of a Religion is
the killing and jailing of people who speak against it. Muslim
countries do this all the time. It is the surest sign of the
stupidity and failure of their religion.

Our 'modern' science in so many areas, but especially climatology
has become this. The calls of Robert Kenney Jr. and Bill Nye (the
Science Guy) to jail climate deniers as war criminals and for
'treason', is the surest sign of the failure of their philosophy
and belief.

Ned

As a result, arguments about scientific matters begin to
acquire predominantly moralistic, political and religious
coloration, as can be observed in the present discussion:
not error, but positive evil is attributed to those whose
opinions differ from one's own. The good people have the
right beliefs. When they achieve power they will impose
their beliefs on the bad people. They must, for if they
do not, apocalyptic catastrophe will result. This kind
of thinking used to be the province of fundamentalist
religion, but now it seems to overshadow everything.
- Anarcissie

Nietzsche:
"It is not enough that you understand in what ignorance
man and beast live; you must also have and acquire the
will to ignorance. You need to grasp that without this
kind of ignorance life itself would be impossible, that
it is a condition under which alone the living thing
can preserve itself and prosper: a great, firm dome of
ignorance must encompass you."
WtP, 609 (1884)

[liaM]

People do get het up about what they don't understand :)

[Wilson]

The modern human may have rejected God and heaven intellectually, but
has not in large part been able to transcend a deep seated (genetically
and subconsciously inherited) need for both. So they've created their
own placeholders to assuage the feeling that something's missing, which
is a job that religious belief has traditionally filled.

Most people do need to believe that they are making a difference in the
world and are playing a part in something greater than their own small
lives.

[brian mitchell]

But doesn't it work equally the other way as well? Don't the climate
change sceptics apply the same sort of moral opprobrium against
supporters of the climate change concensus? In fact, is that not what
you are subtly doing here: accusations of heresy, witch-burning,
suppression of free speech, bullying, arrogance, etc? It just seems to
me that the more heated and intractable the controversy, the more
participants fall back onto arguments from dubious morality in one
guise or another. Moral force trumps reason when one's back is against
one wall or another.

[Ned Ludd]

"brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
news:bqtfhb5kk6jvt3849...@4ax.com...

> "Ned Ludd" wrote:
>
>>
>>"Sanford M. Manley" <ans...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:nes6s5$cul$1...@dont-email.me...
>>> On 4/14/2016 6:58 PM, Wilson wrote:
>>>>
>>>> "Bill Nye, The Science Guy, revealed he is openly favorable to the idea
>>>> of jailing 'global warming' skeptics at the Hague as "war criminals."
>>>> Nye was confronted with environmental activists Robert F. Kennedy's
>>>> call
>>>> to jail climate skeptics for treason and lock them up at the Hague.
>>>>

>>>> Nye added, "For me as a taxpayer and voter - the introduction of this

>>>> extreme doubt about climate change is affecting my quality of life as a
>>>> public citizen."
>>>>
>>>> Morano also asked Nye about the "chilling effect" of threatening
>>>> investigations and jail to scientists who dissent on man-made global
>>>> warming claims.
>>>>
>>>> Nye responded: "That there is a chilling effect on scientists who are
>>>> in

>>>> extreme doubt about climate change - I think is good.

No, it doesn't 'work equally'. At least not so far. No catastrophic
global warming skeptic, to my knowledge, has yet recommended
that climate alarmists be put in jail for terrorizing the public with
threats of global catastrophe.

If fat-headed fascists like Bill Nye can claim that climate skeptics
be jailed as "war criminals" because their "extreme doubt about
climate change is affecting my quality of life as a public citizen",
then I can certainly see a group of skeptics recommending that
Nye be incarcerated for creating terror in the mind of the general
public about global warming. But not one skeptic has yet said that.

All the charges of heresy, and war crimes, and treason are coming
from the alarmists. So far.

Ned

[brian mitchell]

As regards equality of extent, you're probably right, although
accusations of dishonesty, fraud, and indoctrination are levelled at
some climate scientists who express alarm at the rate of current
change. I was more getting at an equality of essence.

[Brian Drummond]

All?

If a state were to prohibit even the use of the term "climate change" let
alone debate about it, among its own employees, thereby making it an
actual crime (at least, transgression of actual policy) and not just
empty rhetoric, would that count?

http://ecowatch.com/2015/04/09/florida-wisconsin-ban-words-climate-change/
(partisan source)

www.scientificamerican.com/article/wisconsin-agency-bans-talk-of-climate-
change/
(more respected source)

-- Brian

[Wilson]

Calling for prison for the "crime" of expressing a dissenting opinion is
not even remotely on the same level. You should note that it's been the
alarmists who have increased the level of intolerance at every step.
They were the first to charge skeptics with dishonesty and fraud.

[Kitty P]

"Brian Drummond" wrote in message news:nfa75e$4g6$1...@dont-email.me...

Brian
-------------

Whenever I read that stuff it reminds me of the dark ages. The science has
moved farther along than this group has on the subject.

I can't help but think, 'so what' that 'a' TV personality got passionate
about his understanding of the climate situation. Wilson's comments make it
seem like it's some sort of consensus. Continued and purposeful ignorance
on the topic, however, will yield its own punishment.

Speaking of which - some interesting stuff is happening. I wrote before
about both liquified natural gas export facilities in Oregon bing
withdrawn. Kinder Morgan's Tennessee's 12,000 mile pipeline to the south has
been withdrawn this week too. All this month. All three highly contested
because of eminent domain rights, fossil fuel as an energy resources, and
safety. Something is up that may or may not be related to this topic.

Kitty

[Ned Ludd]

"Brian Drummond" <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
news:nfa75e$4g6$1...@dont-email.me...

When they threaten to jail Board of Commissioners of Public Land
members for talking about climate change, then it will be on a par
with what Robert Kennedy Jr. and Nye the Fascist Guy are proposing.

God, Wisconsin. I notice that Doug La Follette voted - and was the
only vote - against it. His great-grandfather was an uncle of "Fighting
Bob" La Follette, an American original "Progressive".

Of course, Wisconsin also produced "Tail-Gunner" Joe McCarthy,
perhaps the most rabid anti-communist this nation ever produced.

Which explains, to some extent, why I now live in California.

Ned

[Ned Ludd]

"Kitty P" <kitty...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:nfap76$932$1...@dont-email.me...

> about both liquified natural gas export facilities in Oregon being

> withdrawn. Kinder Morgan's Tennessee's 12,000 mile pipeline to the south
> has been withdrawn this week too. All this month. All three highly
> contested because of eminent domain rights, fossil fuel as an energy
> resources, and safety. Something is up that may or may not be related to
> this topic.
> Kitty
>

In a word, what has happened is $40 oil. If oil goes back up to
80 or 100 a barrel, watch out!

Ned

[daletx]

Kitty, we might as well admit it. We plan on rounding up all the
"deniers" and sticking them down in those unused "Jade Helm" prisons.

You deniers, just watch out the next time you go to WalMart...

DT

[Ned Ludd]

"daletx" <dal...@gnusguy.com> wrote in message
news:nfb1s...@news3.newsguy.com...

Fair enough. All the deniers get stuffed into WalMarts in the
hell-hole that is Texas. Give 'em a little taste of what real
warming is all about.

But then to be fair, we should also round up all the alarmists
and corral them into Quonset huts outside of Nome.

Then give them internet privileges, but restricted to where
they can only talk to each other.

Ned

[daletx]

'Hell-hole'? Buddy, you don't know from hellholes...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3oRp31cMYQ4

DT
(I really liked the Lizards better before they got the female singer.)

[Kitty P]

"Ned Ludd" wrote in message
news:99GdnbeHiIRPv4TK...@earthlink.com...

---------

Heck, it's warmer in Nome than here today (65) heh I was there not long ago
actually. Better pick another place. I know you can.

Right now here is the deal -unfortunately it's a region that is seeing
issues first since the permafrost is melting quickly.

1. Alaska is warming at around twice the rate of the rest of the United
States. The average annual air temperature has risen 6.1° F (3.4° C) in the
past 50 years, while winters have warmed by 11.3° F (6.3° C).2,3 The Nome
area saw a warming trend from 1907 to 1941, and again from 1976 through
early this century.

--Source: (Hinzman, L.D., N.D. Bettez, W.R. Bolton, F.S. Chapin, M.B.
Dyurgerov, C.L. Fastie, B. Griffith, R.D. Hollister, A. Hope, H.P.
Huntington, A.M. Jensen, G.J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, D.L. Kane, D.R. Klein, G.
Kofinas, A.H. Lynch, A.H. Lloyd, A.D. McGuire, F.E. Nelson, W.C. Oechel,
T.E. Osterkamp, C.H. Racine, V.E. Romanovsky, R.S. Stone, D.A. Stow, M.
Sturm, C.E. Tweedie, G.L. Vourlitis, M.D. Walker, D.A. Walker, P.J. Webber,
J.M. Welker, K.S. Winker, and K. Yoshikawa. 2005. Evidence and Implications
of Recent Climate Change in Northern Alaska and Other Arctic Regions.
Climatic Change, 72: pp. 251-298 ↑)

2. Permafrost temperatures in the state have increased since the late 1970s,
and in regions where permafrost tends to be thinner—such as on the Seward
Peninsula—it is more susceptible to thawing.

--Sources (U.S. Global Change Research Program. 2009. Global Climate Change
Impacts in the United States. Thomas R. Karl, Jerry M. Melillo, and Thomas
C. Peterson, (eds.). Cambridge University Press, 2009. ↑
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change). 2007. Summary for
policymakers. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis.
Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning,
Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)].
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, and New York: 1-18. ↑
Hinzman, L.D., N.D. Bettez, W.R. Bolton, F.S. Chapin, M.B. Dyurgerov, C.L.
Fastie, B. Griffith, R.D. Hollister, A. Hope, H.P. Huntington, A.M. Jensen,
G.J. Jia, T. Jorgenson, D.L. Kane, D.R. Klein, G. Kofinas, A.H. Lynch, A.H.
Lloyd, A.D. McGuire, F.E. Nelson, W.C. Oechel, T.E. Osterkamp, C.H. Racine,
V.E. Romanovsky, R.S. Stone, D.A. Stow, M. Sturm, C.E. Tweedie, G.L.
Vourlitis, M.D. Walker, D.A. Walker, P.J. Webber, J.M. Welker, K.S. Winker,
and K. Yoshikawa. 2005. Evidence and Implications of Recent Climate Change
in Northern Alaska and Other Arctic Regions. Climatic Change, 72: pp.
251-298 ↑
Lettenmaier, D., D. Major, L. Poff, and S. Running. 2008. Water resources.
In: The Effects of Climate Change on Agriculture, Land Resources, Water
Resources, and Biodiversity in the United States [Backlund, P., A. Janetos,
D. Schimel, J. Hatfield, K. Boote, P. Fay, L. Hahn, C. Izaurralde, B.A.
Kimball, T. Mader, J. Morgan, D. Ort, W. Polley, A. Thomson, D. Wolfe, M.G.
Ryan, S.R. Archer, R. Birdsey, C. Dahm, L. Heath, J. Hicke, D. Hollinger, T.
Huxman, G. Okin, R. Oren, J. Randerson, W. Schlesinger, D. Lettenmaier, D.
Major, L. Poff, S. Running, L. Hansen, D. Inouye, B.P. Kelly, L. Meyerson,
B. Peterson, and R. Shaw (eds.)]. Synthesis and Assessment Product 4.3. U.S.
Department of Agriculture, Washington, DC: p. 121-150. ↑
U.S. Arctic Research Commission Permafrost Task Force. 2003. Climate Change,
Permafrost, and Impacts on Civil Infrastructure. Report. Special Report
01-03. Online at www.arctic.gov/ publications/ permafrost.pdf. Accessed July
28, 2010 ↑
Yoshikawa, K. and L. Hinzman. 2003. Shrinking thermokarst ponds and
groundwater dynamics in discontinuous permafrost', Permafrost Periglacial
Process, 14: pp. 151-160. ↑
ACIA, 2005: Arctic Climate Impact Assessment: Cambridge University Press,
New York. NY. Available at http://www.acia.uaf.edu/ pages/ scientific.html.
Accessed July 25, 2010. ↑)


Kitty

[Brian Drummond]

On Thu, 21 Apr 2016 09:04:58 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:

> "Brian Drummond" <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:nfa75e$4g6$1...@dont-email.me...
>> On Wed, 20 Apr 2016 15:05:54 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:
>>
>>> "brian mitchell" <brai...@fishing.net> wrote in message
>>> news:bqtfhb5kk6jvt3849...@4ax.com...
>>>> "Ned Ludd" wrote:
>>
>>> All the charges of heresy, and war crimes, and treason are coming
>>> from the alarmists. So far.
>>
>> All?
>>
>> If a state were to prohibit even the use of the term "climate change"
>> let alone debate about it, among its own employees, thereby making it
>> an actual crime (at least, transgression of actual policy) and not just
>> empty rhetoric, would that count?

> When they threaten to jail Board of Commissioners of Public Land
> members for talking about climate change, then it will be on a par with
> what Robert Kennedy Jr. and Nye the Fascist Guy are proposing.

That's ignoring a big difference. They are the authorities.

I have no (well very little) problem with Bill Nye voicing an outrageous
opinion - or Donald Trump for that matter.

But heaven forbid that either of them should run for president using
those opinions as their platform...

-- Brian

[Ned Ludd]

"Brian Drummond" <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

news:nfd1ae$j98$1...@dont-email.me...

And so we come round to complete agreement. But Trump is now
completely revamping his image. Going more pro-choice on abortion
(as predicted), and, who knows, he might even mouth-kiss a gay soon.
Is there any doubt that he is going to do exactly what his 12-year-old
brain wants to do, if the unthinkable happens? And it CAN happen -
we are the people who elected George W. Bush president. Twice.
We are still fighting the war he put us into in Iraq.

The thing about Bill Nye, and Robert Kennedy Jr., is that in some
sense they "are the authorities", too. And that takes this discussion
back to its genesis in the problem of science no longer being science,
at least in America, and Ararcisse's excellent post which began with
the statement, "The massing of authorities is not science and
does not tell us whether someone is a quack."

The "priesthood of all believers" which he referred to, and which
set the West free from the shackles of religion and authoritarian
arbitrariness, depended critically on the concept that "any idea
could be challenged."

This is no longer true. It's much deeper than just Nye and RKF Jr.
The editor of The Los Angeles Times letter's section, openly refuses
to publish any letters from skeptics about the global warming. There
was a movement last June on Facebook, with a petition and signatories,
to "ban climate change denial pages". 20 scientists signed a proposal
by a US senator to subject any American corporation denying global
warming to a RICO investigation.

I googled the (clumsy) phrase "calls for outlawing climate deniers"
and got this... http://tinyurl.com/h6rg4qt Some of those hits contain
very detailed lists of recent actions taken against anyone questioning
global warming.

Anarcisse suggested that our plight is the result of science having
moved to where there is "too much to know." And so, alas...
"Knowledge has to be given credentials, a pedigree. Who will issue
the credentials? The authorities. Who will decide who the authorities
are? They will be credentialized, too. We are finding ourselves in
the same closed circles which inhibited the development of science
from the days of the ancient Greeks until the Renaissance."

I'm not sure that the problem is "too much to know". I feel strongly
that the scribes of Sumer filled their brains with just about as much
information as scientists and scholars do today.

The problem is the politicization, or re-politicization, of science.
There is SO MUCH MONEY in Science, that science can't help but
blow with the political winds. Scientists that make bad, incorrect
predictions are not shunned and marginalized, they are given
MORE MONEY. That's a bad lesson for scientists to learn, but
the ones that don't learn it, aren't in the game any more.

Ned



As a result, arguments about scientific matters
begin to acquire predominantly moralistic, political
and religious coloration, as can be observed in the
present discussion: not error, but positive evil is
attributed to those whose opinions differ from one's
own. The good people have the right beliefs. When
they achieve power they will impose their beliefs
on the bad people. They must, for if they do not,
apocalyptic catastrophe will result. This kind of
thinking used to be the province of fundamentalist
religion, but now it seems to overshadow everything.

That will obviously be the end of science -- and we
still don't know how to detect a quack. - Anarcisse

[daletx]

http://tinypic.com/r/ayaxcm/9

DT

[Kitty P]

"Ned Ludd" wrote in message

news:K-adncRn7Y2VwofK...@earthlink.com...

----------------


There is a lot of jingoisms (my new favorite word) around this topic - it's
true. Both by deniers and people who just believe whatever they are told and
that's why they believe it's true. But the dead honest truth is that the
scientists I know who are working on this came to it because they kept
coming up on anomalies that led to looking at data in an interdisciplinary
way. It has gone from models to actual present data for them to work with
which is helpful, but alarming depending on their disciplinary specialties.

For example, to you, in Cali - the permafrost melting in Alaska doesn't mean
a lot - nothing to get alarmed about. To someone living there it's a whole
lot more important. As some areas have already thawed completely, they need
to start trying to find a way to at least plan ahead for the expensive fixes
that continued thawing would cause. Unfortunately, it has been thawing
regularly and now accelerated since the first studies starting in '76 when
the Trans pipeline was put in.

" Precise temperature measurements have been made in a series of holes bored
200 feet deep along a line running north to south down the middle of the
state along the Trans-Alaska Pipeline...Study results show that much of the
undisturbed discontinuous permafrost south of the Yukon River has warmed
significantly and some of it is thawing. That raises the possibility that
roads, buildings, and other structures on thawed areas will collapse.
Another problem could arise as well: As permafrost thaws it can release
methane and carbon dioxide, gases that contribute to the green house effect
and accelerate global warming." http://alaskacenters.gov/permafrost.cfm

No moral lesson here - just something friends of mine are having to deal
with right now.

Kitty

[brian mitchell]

"Ned Ludd" wrote:

> I'm not sure that the problem is "too much to know". I feel strongly
>that the scribes of Sumer filled their brains with just about as much
>information as scientists and scholars do today.

I think it is "too much to know." To get to the working edge of any
scientific discipline now requires accepting as axiomatic a great deal
of existing information. One cannot any longer be a 'gentleman
investigator' with one's own wood-paneled laboratory, not if one needs
a particle accelerator to explore one's field. Sumerians could
probably rely on oral transmission of what was known; I doubt that
could work now.

[Brian Drummond]

On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:27:33 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:

> "Brian Drummond" <br...@shapes.demon.co.uk> wrote in message

> news:nfd1ae$j98$1...@dont-email.me...

>>>>>> "Ned Ludd" wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> All the charges of heresy, and war crimes, and treason are coming
>>>>> from the alarmists. So far.

I still have to disagree with you on the word "all" here.

>> I have no (well very little) problem with Bill Nye voicing an
>> outrageous opinion - or Donald Trump for that matter.
>>
>> But heaven forbid that either of them should run for president using
>> those opinions as their platform...

> The thing about Bill Nye, and Robert Kennedy Jr., is that in some
> sense they "are the authorities", too.

Right. They are "authorities" in quotes, though RFK has closer
connections to actual power.

> This is no longer true. It's much deeper than just Nye and RKF Jr.
> The editor of The Los Angeles Times letter's section, openly refuses to
> publish any letters from skeptics about the global warming.

His choice. His right under the first amendment and he can't prevent the
same letters from publication elsewhere. I would not expect the Daily
Torygraph (in the UK) to publish letters from trade union leaders and I
don't see any difference here.

And you'll find movements on Facebook for just about anything ...
"authority" they are not.

> I googled the (clumsy) phrase "calls for outlawing climate deniers"
> and got this... http://tinyurl.com/h6rg4qt Some of those hits contain
> very detailed lists of recent actions taken against anyone questioning
> global warming.

I only looked at the first couple of these.

One was a petition to "call out" (whoop-de-whoo, I've been called out,
I'm so scared) a list of deniers : the first screenful include the
Speaker of the House, the man behind stalling the Supreme Court
nomination, two Presidential candidates, and the Governor of a State with
actual policy censoring the mere mention of climate change ... so please
remind me which side of the debate is making "all" the charges, or even
which names on this list you feel so badly for?

(If you can find *actual* censorship or *actual* charges by the man
behind that site, not just a call to speak up, please do post it)



The second takes offence at specific words - a good way to avoid the
actual issues - from above all people ... an Australian journalist.
Definitely "authority" rather than authority.

However when it does quote a real authority - in the scientific rather
than legal sense - the Royal Society - you find they make a much more
specific and I suspect you will agree, reasonable complaint...

"a letter to ExxonMobil demanding that the oil giant cut off its funding
to groups that have ‘misrepresented the science of climate change by
outright denial of the evidence’"
which turns out to be merely a letter asking ExxonMobil when they plan to
make good on a pledge they have already made!

The important point here is that the ONLY real authority in this article
have no problem with real debate about the real evidence or the real
problems in interpreting or understanding it, but consider *outright
denial* of the evidence a step too far.

Now which part of that do you really have a problem with?


So, nothing of substance in the first two hits.

> The problem is the politicization, or re-politicization, of science.
> There is SO MUCH MONEY in Science, that science can't help but blow with
> the political winds. Scientists that make bad, incorrect predictions
> are not shunned and marginalized, they are given MORE MONEY. That's a
> bad lesson for scientists to learn, but the ones that don't learn it,
> aren't in the game any more.

Hmmm, if that were the case - that the application of money produces the
desired scientific result - you'd think that oil-money-funded scientists
could come up with more credible evidence against climate change.

But they really haven't.

Application of money to produce a desired result seems to be much more
reliable in politics than science.

So, despite the faults in science generally, and despite the faults
specific to climate science, I still trust scientists (as scientists, not
makers of public policy) far more than politicians (in either field).

-- Brian

[liaM]

Well documented argument !

[Kitty P]

"liaM" wrote in message news:nffq3p$9p4$1...@dont-email.me...

Same about how women feel when they try to tell them what's best for their
family planning. Everyone likes a heap of of rather strange political
obstructionists men focusing on their uteruses.

[Wilson]

I also trust scientists more than the politicians.

The Science and Policy Institute says the US Federal government alone
spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009.

In 2010 they spent $8.8 billion on climate research (covering things
like technology to reduce emissions, science to understand climate
changes, international assistance for developing countries, and studies
on wildlife adaptation). There's much more money coming from the
government than from private industry.

Is there any chance that the government is buying the results they expect?

http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

[Brian Drummond]

On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:40:37 -0400, Wilson wrote:

> On 4/23/2016 7:45 AM, Brian Drummond wrote:
>> On Fri, 22 Apr 2016 10:27:33 -0700, Ned Ludd wrote:

> I also trust scientists more than the politicians.
>
> The Science and Policy Institute says the US Federal government alone
> spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009.
>
> In 2010 they spent $8.8 billion on climate research (covering things
> like technology to reduce emissions, science to understand climate
> changes, international assistance for developing countries, and studies
> on wildlife adaptation). There's much more money coming from the
> government than from private industry.

That's a huge mismatch between $32bn over 20 years and $9bn in a single
year so something stinks in these numbers. Possibly the former is what is
actually spent on studying the climate and the latter includes everything
that could possibly be vaguely related including flood prevention
measures, rebuilding Inuit villages etc?

> Is there any chance that the government is buying the results they
> expect?
>
> http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-
science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding

That's an interesting question and yes there's always some chance.

However, anything by the Cato institute is unlikely to be a rational and
dispassionate analysis of any question.

And indeed the very first sentence of the abstract simply assumes the
conclusion by stating that there IS a problem and there IS bias.

"The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research
on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal
funding of research."

So despite the paper title "Is the government buying ...?" the abstract
addresses "How much is the government buying ...?"

How often do you beat your wife?

Only at the most superficial level does the rest of the paper even
remotely resemble an attempt to examine the question.

So yes it's an interesting question and worth asking. But this paper is
not the way to answer it. Got anything better?

-- Brian

[liaM]

Another point won, Brian. Wow :) !

[Wilson]

"Points"? Pah.

I prefer ideas.

[liaM]

smile..

[Nobody in Particular]

Oh, really?
The only idea you right-wingers have is "NO!!!"

Oppose. Block. Obstruct. Fight. Deny.

[Wilson]

On 4/24/2016 7:37 AM, Brian Drummond wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Apr 2016 13:40:37 -0400, Wilson wrote:
>
>> I also trust scientists more than the politicians.
>>
>> The Science and Policy Institute says the US Federal government alone
>> spent more than $32.5 billion on climate studies between 1989 and 2009.
>>
>> In 2010 they spent $8.8 billion on climate research (covering things
>> like technology to reduce emissions, science to understand climate
>> changes, international assistance for developing countries, and studies
>> on wildlife adaptation). There's much more money coming from the
>> government than from private industry.
>
> That's a huge mismatch between $32bn over 20 years and $9bn in a single
> year so something stinks in these numbers. Possibly the former is what is
> actually spent on studying the climate and the latter includes everything
> that could possibly be vaguely related including flood prevention
> measures, rebuilding Inuit villages etc?

No doubt. The Congressional Research Service says that the US spent $77
billion from 2008 to 2014 on everything climate related, and 75% of that
was for technology -- mostly through the Department of Energy.

But funding is increasing every year.

>> Is there any chance that the government is buying the results they
>> expect?
>>
>> http://www.cato.org/publications/working-paper/government-buying-
> science-or-support-framework-analysis-federal-funding
>
> That's an interesting question and yes there's always some chance.
>
> However, anything by the Cato institute is unlikely to be a rational and
> dispassionate analysis of any question.
>
> And indeed the very first sentence of the abstract simply assumes the
> conclusion by stating that there IS a problem and there IS bias.
>
> "The purpose of this report is to provide a framework for doing research
> on the problem of bias in science, especially bias induced by Federal
> funding of research."
>
> So despite the paper title "Is the government buying ...?" the abstract
> addresses "How much is the government buying ...?"
>
> How often do you beat your wife?
>
> Only at the most superficial level does the rest of the paper even
> remotely resemble an attempt to examine the question.
>
> So yes it's an interesting question and worth asking. But this paper is
> not the way to answer it. Got anything better?
>
> -- Brian

Threatening scientists for expressing the opinion that AGW might not
necessarily be a crisis will of course, repress dissent.

1. Senator Sheldon Whitehouse (D–RI) proposed *criminal* investigations
into scientists and organizations for what he called “a massive and
sophisticated campaign to mislead the American people” on climate
science."

2. There was a congressional investigation by Rep. Grijalva in February
of 2015 where he demanded the University of Alabama provide personal
details about one of their professors, including copies of all published
papers, the amounts of any outside income including speaking fees, and
the amount of his compensation from the University where he taught.
Imagine your employer being on the receiving end of such a letter
directed at you. Do you imagine they might ask you to tone it down for
the good of everyone else?

3. Dr. Judith Curry, professor and former Chair of the School of Earth
and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology
testified before the US Congress:

"‘Success’ to individual researchers, particularly at the large state
universities, is driven by research dollars – big lab spaces, high
salaries, institutional prestige, and career advancement. At the Program
Manager level within a funding agency, ‘success’ is reflected in growing
the size of their program (e.g. more funding) and having some high
profile results (e.g. press releases). At higher levels, Divisional
administrators are competing for budget dollars against the other
Divisions; tying their research to a national policy priority helps in
this competition. At the agency level, ‘success’ is reflected in
growing, or at least preserving, the agency’s budget. Aligning yourself,
your program, your agency with the current political imperatives is a
key to ‘success’.

"It is very difficult to obtain federal research funding for dissenting
science. Difficulty in the peer review process is only part of the
problem. One problem is reflected in an email I recently received from a
scientist employed at NASA:

“I was at a small meeting of NASA-affiliated scientists and was told by
our top manager that he was told by his NASA boss that we should not try
to publish papers contrary to the current global warming claims, because
he (the NASA boss) would then have a headache countering the
“undesirable” publicity”.

4. President Obama has contributed to this by making anti-science
statements, for example, castigating those with different opinions as
part of the “flat earth society” with their “heads in the sand,” and
encouraging people to “find the deniers near you—and call them out today.”
___

So the US government is clearly opposing results they don't agree with.
And *any* spending by critics of government position is now officially
suspect and might be investigated by the government.

If critics can't fund science, that effectively makes the government
position the only one.

[Ned Ludd]

"Wilson" <phwi...@nowhere.net> wrote in message
news:9_udnQqsoq6alYDK...@supernews.com...

This is unf*cking believable! Look at this...!
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/

There are 174 people shown in those little boxes on that page,
for you to, presumably, harass them about their position on
climate change.

This is a website of the PRESIDENT of the US, using tax dollars
of the American public, to harass politicians who don't agree with
him.

Has Obama, or any President, done this on any other topic, ever?
Is there any topic more important than climate change denial that
would worthy of tax-payer-funded attacks? How about RACISM?

Has Obama set up a web page like this for people to harass racist
senators and representatives?? Why not? Surely racism is as
important as climate change to the well-being of all Americans?

Ned

[Wilson]

Here's more on the ongoing effort by the US government and its lackeys
to suppress dissent from climate scientists:

https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/02/arizona_congressman_asking_que.html

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/05/climate_expert_john_christy_us.html

http://www.al.com/news/huntsville/index.ssf/2015/03/climate_expert_john_christy_on.html

And here's a good article from 2013 about Judith Curry's experiences
with scientists who challenge the climate orthodoxy:

https://judithcurry.com/2013/08/20/scientists-and-motivated-reasoning/

On the humorous side, at Austin's South by South West tech festival Al
Gore says that climate change deniers should be punished and that you
should invest in renewable energy despite his own investment company
selling millions of dollars worth of green tech shares (at a loss) three
years ago once again proving that not only is he an idiot he's
hypocritical as well:

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/03/17/al-gore-climate-change-deniers-must-be-punished/

[liaM]

Maybe it'll help vote these deniers out of office. Only a denier
like you thinks the Pres is asking the public to harass them.

[liaM]

[Ned Ludd]

"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message
news:nfjm4k$7h2$1...@dont-email.me...

Shameful. Absolutely disgraceful. What a tool! This is going to
come back to haunt him.

Ned

[Nobody in Particular]

Are you drunk?

Memo to sales personnel:
"If you must drink during lunch, please drink whiskey, not vodka.
This way, customers will know you're drunk, not just plain stupid."

[liaM]

You're nuts.

[liaM]

The deep end is deeper than I ever thought possible, even on the Usenet!

[Ned Ludd]

"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message

news:nfk467$eaj$1...@dont-email.me...

And there is nothing most climate deniers like better than being
"called out". Hell, most whom I have read, and especially those
I've read here, are ready to tear a new asshole into the bullshit
scare tactics and unfulfilled predictions of the alarmist community.

They LOVE to be called out. Which is why there are so many
active attempts to muzzle them and their speech.

So Obama's fancy little website is just plain lying when it says,
"Find the deniers near you - and call them out today." They want
to identify and stigmatize ALL climate skeptics, but NEVER let
them speak. Shout them down, recommend the Hague as war
criminals, or US jails for "Treason", but definitely don't let them
speak. Make that a crime - like Bill Nye the Science Guy says
it should be.

Yeah, call them out. But don't listen.

Ned

[liaM]

R.I.P. Ned Ludd. Here's wishing you a favorable rebirth in a better
world than the one you've created for yourself.

[Nobody in Particular]

You know, i'm beginning to think that he actually believes that Obama
set up that website, going through San Francisco's Cloudflare ISP.
Do you think he's serious or just putting on a dumb act?

[Ned Ludd]

"Nobody in Particular" <nob...@invalid.com> wrote in message
news:nfk6h5$jk1$1...@dont-email.me...

Hey, complete shit-for-brains, that is most definitely the
official site of President Barack Obama. If you go to the wiki
entry on Obama... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obama
... and look in the long box at the right, under his picture, under
his signature, you see his website, which is www.barackobama.com

If you click on it, then click on the box at the top called "Issues"
and click on the drop-down labeled "Climate Change", then do a
search (Ctl-F) on that page for "Call them out", and click on the
box labeled "Call them out", you will see the thing I showed at
start of my post.

Dumb-ass!

Ned

[liaM]

The art of politics in a populo-democracy is persuasion. Barack Obama
is in his role as a political leader to attempt to persuade voters to
vote climate change nay-sayers out of office. When a house is on fire,
try to get the occupants to leave the house :)

[Kitty P]

"Brian Drummond" wrote in message news:nfib51$5jp$1...@dont-email.me...

Brian
-------------

Well done.

[Ned Ludd]

"liaM" <cud...@mindless.com> wrote in message

news:nfkv8j$7h4$1...@dont-email.me...

It was a stupid story when Buddha told it, and it's a stupid story now.

NiP's screw-up in thinking it WASN'T a real Obama site is very telling,
because Mary had the same reaction. And Mary doesn't have an axe
to grind in this argument. She looked at it and said, "Well, he must
have let some group use his name for this, or something."

No, wrong. He (Obama) is supporting direct email harassment of
anyone who deviates from the national politico-scientific line of
catastrophic global warming.

Why did both NiP and Mary, in their first reaction, disbelieve that
a US President could do something like this? - List 174 people to
be singled out for marginalization and stigmatization because they
don't buy all the cant and propaganda spewed by a government-funded
cabal of end-time doomers?

Because that's what this site does. It is a purge list, minus the
reward for killing them, of people to be shunned and banned. When
you click on someone you want to harass, it offers you one of two
messages you can have tweeted to them, ordering them to "accept
science" - Fuck! just like the Christians forced you to "accept Jesus"
and the Muslims force you to "accept Islam" - or an email message,
which they have already prepared for you. To wit...
---
Dear Rep. Paul Ryan,
The evidence of climate change is overwhelming -- and the science is clear.
97% of climate scientists agree that it is real and man-made. The latest
National Climate Assessment states that climate change "has moved firmly
into the present." It's already impacting communities across the country in
the form of more frequent and severe weather like droughts, storms, floods,
heat waves, and wildfires.
Climate change is linked to an increase in asthma attacks in kids, and we're
already paying the price for our inaction rebuilding from disasters. We
can't afford to do nothing.
Everyone from the Pope to the Pentagon is calling climate change a threat
that needs to be addressed, so I'm asking you to stop denying the basic
science of climate change, and act now to protect our children, our
families, and our communities.
Sincerely,
---

I LOVE the "kids" touch. Won't SOMEBODY, PLEASE think of the children!
(The last f*cking refuge of a scoundrel.)

I guess the only nice thing about it is that it IS an email message,
and it can be edited.

Wouldn't it be wonderful if a bunch of people used this site to send
messages to the 174 Pariahs, thanking them for questioning this
UNPROVEN doomsday theory, and encouraging them to stand fast
in not accepting the party-line bullshit that is now national policy.

Ned

[Kitty P]

"Ned Ludd" wrote in message
news:EM-dnX16IrGENYDK...@earthlink.com...

--------------------

The site is paid for by a 501(c)(4) called Organizing for Action. They own
the rights to barackobama.com. if you look it up on WHOIS. They do attempt
to provide action on Obama agendas.

Some times wiki leads a person down a rabbit hole.

Kitty