The Death of Real Science

[Oddball]

Right...That's why Jones threatened to "redefine peer review".

In the meantime, we've seen more and more evidence that the CRU/UCAR/NCAR/NASA/Penn State axis is an exclusivist echo chamber, to the point that even some of the true believers say that the whole process should be suspended.

This is very unfortunate. I think that the IPCC should suspend the AR5 process, fix the procedures for nominating and selecting authors, and postpone the report to 2015. I’d rather bet on New Zealand winning the world cup.

Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC: This Time Will be Different (Not), A Guest Post by Richard Tol

IPCC5 Key Economic Sectors and Services: Submission to the IAC (second draft)

~Richard Tol

Keep posting, you keep making a fool of yourself.

From your OWN link:

WG2 has put me forward as a convening lead author of one of the chapters in AR5.
~Richard Tol

And:

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Richard, thanks for this. FYI, I was asked to serve as an LA for WG2, and I have declined the invitation.

So to spell it out for you and so you can't play dumb, both critics of the IPCC were INVITED to be lead authors.

Again please explain how including competing reports and inviting the very critics you linked to is "QUASHING" anything?????????

So, that's Pielke.

How many of, saaaaaay, these people been invited to give their scientific opinions and/or be lead authors on the matter, or is a mere token or two amongst the echo chamber enough for you?

 

[Woyzeck]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

 

[Oddball]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

First of all, you have the echo chamber of academe, which pretty much lives and dies by its "peer review" processes, which are a political as you can get. Not remocrat/depublican political, but political in the sense that you quite often have to tell the "peers" to whom you're submitting your work what they want to hear, in order to have your research get .

When the group of insiders gets tight enough and exclusive enough, you then open things wide for what has happened in the CRU e-mail and computer code scandal, where the work of just about everyone is considered suspect, because of of their further research being tainted by being based upon purposefully skewed numbers from up the line.

Then, there's the motivation to keep the funding flowing in for your "research. Since most of the globalclimatecoolerwarmering "scientists" don't have jobs in the real world creating products other people want, they have to rely upon panhandling from politicians and shaking down alumni associations at the various institutions where they are employed. Subsequently, there's no money in coming out and saying "No problem folks, it's not nearly as bad as we thought!" or "Oooops, silly us...it was a natural phenomenon all along!"...Think of it as the climate science version of Ghostbusters.

Of course, you cannot possibly discount the egos involved....Nothing like believing that you're saving all of humanity to really ramp up the bias and look for evidence that you're right, while ignoring or discounting everything that may prove you in error.

And those are just off the top of my head.

 

[edthecynic]

Without my posts to copy, how would you be able to compose yours?

Another unintended complement?

BTW, I noticed that you have now combined 'conservatve' with 'fascist.'

I'll assume that that means that you dispise both...although as always one take a chance when
one assumes that you know what you are doing...

And herein you have revealed my raison d'etre: educating the uninformed...that would be you.
A while ago I explained that your sig-hero, George Bernard Shaw was a fascist...yet you still include his words.
Consistency is not your strong suit...Do you have any strong suits?


Now for today's lesson...let's call it a Father's Day Lesson.

It's called "Liberals/Progressives Fell From The Fascist Forest," by me....for you.

Most of us were raised on the liberal-progressive narrative which sidesteps the fact that the liberal intellectual tradition comes from the same font as does fascism, both are utopian, and replace Christianity with a new religion of the divinizes state, and the nation as an organic community.

Before WW II, the same folks who championed Progressivism, viewed fascism as a noble economic agenda, and praised Mussolini. It was the horrors of the Holocaust that required both the rapid retreat from associations with the term fascism, and the rebranding by John Dewey of progressivism as liberalism.

W.E.B.DuBois suggested that National Socialism seemed an excellent model for economic organization. http://www.ghi-dc.org/files/publications/bu_supp/supp5/supp5_099.pdf

DuBois had studied at the University of Berlin, and this itself was the almost universal among early progressives, who envied Bismarck’s welfare state, and Hegel’s philosophy. Hegel introduced a system for understanding the history of philosophy and the world itself, often described as a "progression in which each successive movement emerges as a resolution to the contradictions inherent in the preceding movement"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georg_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Hegel

The excesses of the European versions of fascism were mitigated by the specific history and culture of America, Jeffersonian individualism, heterogeneity of the population, but the central theme is still an all-encompassing state that centralizes power to perfect human nature by controlling every aspect of life., albeit at the loss of what had hitherfore been accepted as ‘inalienable human rights.’

You're welcome.

And STILL no "competing measurements."
No surprise there!!!

Interesting that you bring up the beating you took when you parroted your CON$ervoFascist sources' deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking you were being brilliant by echoing their BS because, while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you. As I have said many times CON$ lie to your level of IGNORANCE!

You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs and now you say you are going to "school" me about CON$ervoFascism just like you did on Shaw!
I would say you know less about Fascism than you do about Shaw. And you know nothing about Shaw.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Well, anything to distract from the fact that you still have no "competing measurements."

Now, now, EdattheClinic...

You are prevaricating again...

1. "...deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking..."
I actually gave you the youtube of Shaw championing killing folks.

Need more? How's this:
"Less amusing is the number of intellectuals, businessmen and political leaders who gave eugenics their blessing or fervid support. The list begins with Darwin, who in The Descent of Man praised his cousin Galton and decreed that genius "tends to be inherited." Other champions included the young Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, ..."

Read more: Cursed by Eugenics - TIME

2. " ...while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you."
Well, I certainly know more than you...is that sufficient?
And my quote about Shaw, above, does that make "a complete fool of you"?

3. "...You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs ..."
That is a cute allusion, and I must admit that I don't recall such, but if there were any questions that you feel I left unanswered, please refresh my memory and I will be certain to "school" you about same.

And, since you do seem to be in the...let's call it the 'slow row,' a review is probably in order:
a) you conflated conservative with fascist

b) I documented that it is your team, the left, that, philosophically, progresses (pun) from fascism.

c) to keep you from further embarrassing yourself, study the following:

‘’’the title Liberal Fascism comes from a speech delivered by H. G. Wells, one of the most important and influential progressive and socialist intellectuals of the 20th century. He wanted to re-brand liberalism as “liberal fascism” and even “enlightened Nazism.” He believed these terms best described his own political views — views that deeply informed American progressivism and New Deal liberalism.Basically, Wells believed parliamentary democracy is incapable of bringing about a proper political order. Only an authoritarian, technocratic elite can do so. But when the ideal order is realized, it will be in some ways liberal. “One prosperous and progressive world community of just, kindly, free-spirited, freely-thinking, and freely-speaking human beings”. Liberal Fascism: Wings Over the World Edition — Crooked Timber

Oops. Sorry if this indicates "pretending to know more than anyone,..." Or, more than you, at least.
(Emphasis mine, because I don't trust your reading skills.)


And, you're welcome.

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting your Right-Wing programmers' propaganda. Interesting how you have to bring up H G Wells in your attempt to mischaracterize Shavian Eugenics as if Shaw is responsible for Wells.

You posted this:

Shaw said:
“The only fundemental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding

Yet rather than "FORCED" selective breeding, Shavian Eugenics involved women choosing who to mate with no force or killing involved, unless you Fascists are claiming women killed the mates that the State never forced them to choose.

As I posted, which caused you to cut & run since you never replied to the post:

And thirdly, your deliberate mischaracterization of Shaw's eugenics is a perfect example of how CON$ lie. You obviously never read Shaw and are merely parroting the crapaganda from CON$ervative hate websites.

Shaw never advocated "S"elective breading, he advocated ELECTIVE breading which became known as "Shavian Eugenics." Rather than the "state forced selective breading" you pathological liars parrot, his Shavian Eugenics was a result of women subconsciously selecting the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the elective choice made by women of who they mate with, with no state involvement at all.

 

[edthecynic]

Right...That's why Jones threatened to "redefine peer review".

In the meantime, we've seen more and more evidence that the CRU/UCAR/NCAR/NASA/Penn State axis is an exclusivist echo chamber, to the point that even some of the true believers say that the whole process should be suspended.



Roger Pielke Jr.'s Blog: IPCC: This Time Will be Different (Not), A Guest Post by Richard Tol

IPCC5 Key Economic Sectors and Services: Submission to the IAC (second draft)

~Richard Tol

Keep posting, you keep making a fool of yourself.

From your OWN link:



And:

Roger Pielke, Jr. said...
Richard, thanks for this. FYI, I was asked to serve as an LA for WG2, and I have declined the invitation.

So to spell it out for you and so you can't play dumb, both critics of the IPCC were INVITED to be lead authors.

Again please explain how including competing reports and inviting the very critics you linked to is "QUASHING" anything?????????

So, that's Pielke.

How many of, saaaaaay, these people been invited to give their scientific opinions and/or be lead authors on the matter, or is a mere token or two amongst the echo chamber enough for you?

Obviously MORE were invited than had the courage to face their peers, as your Pielke admitted he declined the offer. If you deniers weren't sure you are full of it, why are you so afraid to present your "contradictory measurements" to the scientific community?????

 

[Oddball]

You have no idea as to anyone's motivations, Buckwheat.

Maybe Pielke has better things to do with his time than be a token, who won't get paid any mind anyways.

In any case, it is duly noted that you couldn't name any of the other "deniers" who have been invited to play the IPCC circle jerk.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And STILL no "competing measurements."
No surprise there!!!

Interesting that you bring up the beating you took when you parroted your CON$ervoFascist sources' deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking you were being brilliant by echoing their BS because, while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you. As I have said many times CON$ lie to your level of IGNORANCE!

You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs and now you say you are going to "school" me about CON$ervoFascism just like you did on Shaw!
I would say you know less about Fascism than you do about Shaw. And you know nothing about Shaw.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/2357153-post39.html

Well, anything to distract from the fact that you still have no "competing measurements."

Now, now, EdattheClinic...

You are prevaricating again...

1. "...deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking..."
I actually gave you the youtube of Shaw championing killing folks.

Need more? How's this:
"Less amusing is the number of intellectuals, businessmen and political leaders who gave eugenics their blessing or fervid support. The list begins with Darwin, who in The Descent of Man praised his cousin Galton and decreed that genius "tends to be inherited." Other champions included the young Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, ..."

Read more: Cursed by Eugenics - TIME

2. " ...while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you."
Well, I certainly know more than you...is that sufficient?
And my quote about Shaw, above, does that make "a complete fool of you"?

3. "...You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs ..."
That is a cute allusion, and I must admit that I don't recall such, but if there were any questions that you feel I left unanswered, please refresh my memory and I will be certain to "school" you about same.

And, since you do seem to be in the...let's call it the 'slow row,' a review is probably in order:
a) you conflated conservative with fascist

b) I documented that it is your team, the left, that, philosophically, progresses (pun) from fascism.

c) to keep you from further embarrassing yourself, study the following:

‘’’the title Liberal Fascism comes from a speech delivered by H. G. Wells, one of the most important and influential progressive and socialist intellectuals of the 20th century. He wanted to re-brand liberalism as “liberal fascism” and even “enlightened Nazism.” He believed these terms best described his own political views — views that deeply informed American progressivism and New Deal liberalism.Basically, Wells believed parliamentary democracy is incapable of bringing about a proper political order. Only an authoritarian, technocratic elite can do so. But when the ideal order is realized, it will be in some ways liberal. “One prosperous and progressive world community of just, kindly, free-spirited, freely-thinking, and freely-speaking human beings”. Liberal Fascism: Wings Over the World Edition — Crooked Timber

Oops. Sorry if this indicates "pretending to know more than anyone,..." Or, more than you, at least.
(Emphasis mine, because I don't trust your reading skills.)


And, you're welcome.

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting your Right-Wing programmers' propaganda. Interesting how you have to bring up H G Wells in your attempt to mischaracterize Shavian Eugenics as if Shaw is responsible for Wells.

You posted this:

Shaw said:
“The only fundemental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding

Yet rather than "FORCED" selective breeding, Shavian Eugenics involved women choosing who to mate with no force or killing involved, unless you Fascists are claiming women killed the mates that the State never forced them to choose.

As I posted, which caused you to cut & run since you never replied to the post:

And thirdly, your deliberate mischaracterization of Shaw's eugenics is a perfect example of how CON$ lie. You obviously never read Shaw and are merely parroting the crapaganda from CON$ervative hate websites.

Shaw never advocated "S"elective breading, he advocated ELECTIVE breading which became known as "Shavian Eugenics." Rather than the "state forced selective breading" you pathological liars parrot, his Shavian Eugenics was a result of women subconsciously selecting the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the elective choice made by women of who they mate with, with no state involvement at all.

Just when I think we have seen the nadir of invincible ignorance, you manage to move the bar to even greater depth.

Now I see what you characteize as having 'cut and run.'

Having explained the fascistic and homicidal nature of Shaw's extreme belief in eugenics, and provided documentation, including him saying same in a video, you, as either dense or dishonest, deny same.

No wonder I stopped answering.

This will be the last time.

Read, and believe or don't.

"The British eugenicist Robert Rentoul’s 1906 book, Race Culture; Or, Race Suicide?, included a long section entitled “The Murder of Degenerates.” In it, he routinely referred to Dr. D. F. Smith’s earlier suggestion that those found guilty of homicide be executed in a “lethal chamber” rather than by hanging. He then cited a new novel whose character “advocate[d] the doctrine of ‘euthanasia’ for those suffering from incurable physical diseases.” Rentoul admitted he had received many letters in support of killing the unfit, but he rejected them as too cruel, explaining, “These [suggestions] seem to fail to recognize that the killing off of few hundreds of lunatics, idiots, etc., would not tend to effect a cure.”

The debate raged among British eugenicists, provoking damnation in the press. In 1910, the eugenic extremist George Bernard Shaw lectured at London’s Eugenics Education Society about mass murder in lethal chambers. Shaw proclaimed, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” Several British newspapers excoriated Shaw and eugenics under such headlines as “Lethal Chamber Essential to Eugenics.”
History News Network


Should you develop a desire to show any scholarship, consult the following: Shaw advocated the abolition of traditional marriage in favor of polygamy under the auspices of a State Department of Evolution, forming a 'human stud farm.' According to Shaw, the state should deal with criminal and genetically undesirable elements as follows: "[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, we should place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them."

The quotation is well known.

1. George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy" p. 43

2. Paul, "Eugenics and the Left," p. 568, citing George Bernard Shaw, 'Sociological Papers, pp. 74-75

3. George Bernard Shaw, preface to 'Major Barbara,' p. 47

Should you choose to close your eyes to the above...so be it. I will understad same as your personal reflection that Shaw would have chosen you for his 'sympathy.'

 

[edthecynic]

You have no idea as to anyone's motivations, Buckwheat.

Maybe Pielke has better things to do with his time than be a token, who won't get paid any mind anyways.

In any case, it is duly noted that you couldn't name any of the other "deniers" who have been invited to play the IPCC circle jerk.

But YOU do!

It's pretty obvious that your list of "scientists" have much to fear in facing their peers. Just like you they contradict themselves, but unlike you they do not wish to make fools of themselves.

The first from YOUR list, for example:

Timothy F. Ball, former Professor of Geography, University of Winnipeg: "[The world's climate] warmed from 1680 up to 1940, but since 1940 it's been cooling down. The evidence for warming is because of distorted records. The satellite data, for example, shows cooling." (November 2004)[4] "There's been warming, no question. I've never debated that; never disputed that. The dispute is, what is the cause. And of course the argument that human CO2 being added to the atmosphere is the cause just simply doesn't hold up..." (May 18, 2006; at 15:30 into recording of interview)[5] "The temperature hasn't gone up. ... But the mood of the world has changed: It has heated up to this belief in global warming." (August 2006)[6] "Temperatures declined from 1940 to 1980 and in the early 1970's global cooling became the consensus. ... By the 1990's temperatures appeared to have reversed and Global Warming became the consensus. It appears I'll witness another cycle before retiring, as the major mechanisms and the global temperature trends now indicate a cooling." (Feb. 5, 2007)[7]

I love how 7 times he denies warming while claiming he has NEVER disputed the fact that the globe is warming, only the cause.
No wonder deniers are too terrified to face their peers.
BTW, the consensus among SCIENTISTS in the 70's was warming, not cooling. Only deniers were predicting a coming Ice Age.

 

[code1211]

Thank God the Right Wing doesn't believe in "fake science" or live by "ideology". From now on, I'm getting all my science from them. After all, look at all the success they've brought the world. All the inventions that come from "conservative scientists". The amazing technology. The biological science. The list is endless.

You're probably right. When Carly Fiorina was the head of Hewlet Packard, that company filed for 11 patents on an average day.

 

[code1211]

no problem has ever been solved by conservatism and no advances have ever been made by conservatism.

the definition of conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo.

I don't agree with your definition. I feel that I am a Conservative, but am never satisfied with nor do strive to maintain the Staus Quo.

To me, being Conservative means decentralizing the power of Government, reducing the reach and power of Government, emphasizing the impact of personal responsibility and encouraging individual initiative and reward.

It also means that the Government should be run by laws and not by the agendas of political parties.

Finally, the wealth of the individual citizens should be regarded as personal wealth and not just potential tax revenues. Also, all individuals should recognize that to live in any community requires both financial and active contributions for that community to thrive and those contributions need to be made or exacted from all who enjoy the benefits of the community.

What points above do you disagree with?

 

[edthecynic]

Now, now, EdattheClinic...

You are prevaricating again...

1. "...deliberate misrepresentation of Shaw's eugenics thinking..."
I actually gave you the youtube of Shaw championing killing folks.

Need more? How's this:
"Less amusing is the number of intellectuals, businessmen and political leaders who gave eugenics their blessing or fervid support. The list begins with Darwin, who in The Descent of Man praised his cousin Galton and decreed that genius "tends to be inherited." Other champions included the young Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw, ..."

Read more: Cursed by Eugenics - TIME

2. " ...while pretending to know more than anyone, you were too ignorant to know they were lying to you and making a complete fool of you."
Well, I certainly know more than you...is that sufficient?
And my quote about Shaw, above, does that make "a complete fool of you"?

3. "...You cut and ran from that thread with your tail between your legs ..."
That is a cute allusion, and I must admit that I don't recall such, but if there were any questions that you feel I left unanswered, please refresh my memory and I will be certain to "school" you about same.

And, since you do seem to be in the...let's call it the 'slow row,' a review is probably in order:
a) you conflated conservative with fascist

b) I documented that it is your team, the left, that, philosophically, progresses (pun) from fascism.

c) to keep you from further embarrassing yourself, study the following:

‘’’the title Liberal Fascism comes from a speech delivered by H. G. Wells, one of the most important and influential progressive and socialist intellectuals of the 20th century. He wanted to re-brand liberalism as “liberal fascism” and even “enlightened Nazism.” He believed these terms best described his own political views — views that deeply informed American progressivism and New Deal liberalism.Basically, Wells believed parliamentary democracy is incapable of bringing about a proper political order. Only an authoritarian, technocratic elite can do so. But when the ideal order is realized, it will be in some ways liberal. “One prosperous and progressive world community of just, kindly, free-spirited, freely-thinking, and freely-speaking human beings”. Liberal Fascism: Wings Over the World Edition — Crooked Timber

Oops. Sorry if this indicates "pretending to know more than anyone,..." Or, more than you, at least.
(Emphasis mine, because I don't trust your reading skills.)


And, you're welcome.

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting your Right-Wing programmers' propaganda. Interesting how you have to bring up H G Wells in your attempt to mischaracterize Shavian Eugenics as if Shaw is responsible for Wells.

You posted this:

Yet rather than "FORCED" selective breeding, Shavian Eugenics involved women choosing who to mate with no force or killing involved, unless you Fascists are claiming women killed the mates that the State never forced them to choose.

As I posted, which caused you to cut & run since you never replied to the post:

And thirdly, your deliberate mischaracterization of Shaw's eugenics is a perfect example of how CON$ lie. You obviously never read Shaw and are merely parroting the crapaganda from CON$ervative hate websites.

Shaw never advocated "S"elective breading, he advocated ELECTIVE breading which became known as "Shavian Eugenics." Rather than the "state forced selective breading" you pathological liars parrot, his Shavian Eugenics was a result of women subconsciously selecting the mates most likely to give them superior children. So Shaw's eugenics was purely the elective choice made by women of who they mate with, with no state involvement at all.

Just when I think we have seen the nadir of invincible ignorance, you manage to move the bar to even greater depth.

Now I see what you characteize as having 'cut and run.'

Having explained the fascistic and homicidal nature of Shaw's extreme belief in eugenics, and provided documentation, including him saying same in a video, you, as either dense or dishonest, deny same.

No wonder I stopped answering.

This will be the last time.

Read, and believe or don't.

"The British eugenicist Robert Rentoul’s 1906 book, Race Culture; Or, Race Suicide?, included a long section entitled “The Murder of Degenerates.” In it, he routinely referred to Dr. D. F. Smith’s earlier suggestion that those found guilty of homicide be executed in a “lethal chamber” rather than by hanging. He then cited a new novel whose character “advocate[d] the doctrine of ‘euthanasia’ for those suffering from incurable physical diseases.” Rentoul admitted he had received many letters in support of killing the unfit, but he rejected them as too cruel, explaining, “These [suggestions] seem to fail to recognize that the killing off of few hundreds of lunatics, idiots, etc., would not tend to effect a cure.”

The debate raged among British eugenicists, provoking damnation in the press. In 1910, the eugenic extremist George Bernard Shaw lectured at London’s Eugenics Education Society about mass murder in lethal chambers. Shaw proclaimed, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” Several British newspapers excoriated Shaw and eugenics under such headlines as “Lethal Chamber Essential to Eugenics.”
History News Network


Should you develop a desire to show any scholarship, consult the following: Shaw advocated the abolition of traditional marriage in favor of polygamy under the auspices of a State Department of Evolution, forming a 'human stud farm.' According to Shaw, the state should deal with criminal and genetically undesirable elements as follows: "[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, we should place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them."

The quotation is well known.

1. George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy" p. 43

2. Paul, "Eugenics and the Left," p. 568, citing George Bernard Shaw, 'Sociological Papers, pp. 74-75

3. George Bernard Shaw, preface to 'Major Barbara,' p. 47

Should you choose to close your eyes to the above...so be it. I will understad same as your personal reflection that Shaw would have chosen you for his 'sympathy.'

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting the GOP hate mongers like Beck and Sowell, etc,. and their tactics of out of context quote mining and the half-truth.

The context of the highlighted quote was SATIRE, which was ALSO reported by British newspapers who "got it" but deliberately left out by you and your fellow deceivers.
While some in the British press believed Shaw to be serious and vilified him, these of course are the only reports the CON$ervoFascists ever cite, others like The Globe and The Evening News recognized the tongue in cheek nature of his lecture and reported the lecture correctly as a "SKIT" on the dreams of eugenicists. These reports are NEVER cited by the CON$ervoFascist deceivers knowing pinheads like you will never look any further than the half-truths CON$ cite. Of course that requires you to ignore the fact that Shaw was first and foremost a SATIRIST!!!

So in typical fashion, you counter your misrepresentation Shaw's eugenics by women choosing "supermen" to mate with as "State forced breeding," with a misrepresentation of satire as seriousness.
No surprise there!

 

[edthecynic]

no problem has ever been solved by conservatism and no advances have ever been made by conservatism.

the definition of conservative is one who wants to maintain the status quo.

I don't agree with your definition. I feel that I am a Conservative, but am never satisfied with nor do strive to maintain the Staus Quo.

To me, being Conservative means decentralizing the power of Government, reducing the reach and power of Government, emphasizing the impact of personal responsibility and encouraging individual initiative and reward.

It also means that the Government should be run by laws and not by the agendas of political parties.

Finally, the wealth of the individual citizens should be regarded as personal wealth and not just potential tax revenues. Also, all individuals should recognize that to live in any community requires both financial and active contributions for that community to thrive and those contributions need to be made or exacted from all who enjoy the benefits of the community.

What points above do you disagree with?

The point that "say one thing and do the opposite" CON$ervatives when in power grow government, increase spending, raise taxes on those who benefit least and cut taxes on those who benefit most, and borrow us into bankruptcy passing the debt on to future generations. In short, CON$ do everything they condemn in others.

 

[westwall]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

Because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil Jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in US taxpayers dollars (and that does NOT include what he has recieved from the UK taxpayer). Mann just got another 500,000 US taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the AGW crowd has been able to defraud the US taxpayer of over 100 BILLION dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

 

[edthecynic]

so, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in us taxpayers dollars (and that does not include what he has recieved from the uk taxpayer). mann just got another 500,000 us taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the agw crowd has been able to defraud the us taxpayer of over 100 billion dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Liar!!!!!!

 

[PoliticalChic]

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting your Right-Wing programmers' propaganda. Interesting how you have to bring up H G Wells in your attempt to mischaracterize Shavian Eugenics as if Shaw is responsible for Wells.

You posted this:

Yet rather than "FORCED" selective breeding, Shavian Eugenics involved women choosing who to mate with no force or killing involved, unless you Fascists are claiming women killed the mates that the State never forced them to choose.

As I posted, which caused you to cut & run since you never replied to the post:

Just when I think we have seen the nadir of invincible ignorance, you manage to move the bar to even greater depth.

Now I see what you characteize as having 'cut and run.'

Having explained the fascistic and homicidal nature of Shaw's extreme belief in eugenics, and provided documentation, including him saying same in a video, you, as either dense or dishonest, deny same.

No wonder I stopped answering.

This will be the last time.

Read, and believe or don't.

"The British eugenicist Robert Rentoul’s 1906 book, Race Culture; Or, Race Suicide?, included a long section entitled “The Murder of Degenerates.” In it, he routinely referred to Dr. D. F. Smith’s earlier suggestion that those found guilty of homicide be executed in a “lethal chamber” rather than by hanging. He then cited a new novel whose character “advocate[d] the doctrine of ‘euthanasia’ for those suffering from incurable physical diseases.” Rentoul admitted he had received many letters in support of killing the unfit, but he rejected them as too cruel, explaining, “These [suggestions] seem to fail to recognize that the killing off of few hundreds of lunatics, idiots, etc., would not tend to effect a cure.”

The debate raged among British eugenicists, provoking damnation in the press. In 1910, the eugenic extremist George Bernard Shaw lectured at London’s Eugenics Education Society about mass murder in lethal chambers. Shaw proclaimed, “A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence, simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.” Several British newspapers excoriated Shaw and eugenics under such headlines as “Lethal Chamber Essential to Eugenics.”
History News Network


Should you develop a desire to show any scholarship, consult the following: Shaw advocated the abolition of traditional marriage in favor of polygamy under the auspices of a State Department of Evolution, forming a 'human stud farm.' According to Shaw, the state should deal with criminal and genetically undesirable elements as follows: "[W]ith many apologies and expressions of sympathy and some generosity in complying with their last wishes, we should place them in the lethal chamber and get rid of them."

The quotation is well known.

1. George Bernard Shaw, "Man and Superman: A Comedy and a Philosophy" p. 43

2. Paul, "Eugenics and the Left," p. 568, citing George Bernard Shaw, 'Sociological Papers, pp. 74-75

3. George Bernard Shaw, preface to 'Major Barbara,' p. 47

Should you choose to close your eyes to the above...so be it. I will understad same as your personal reflection that Shaw would have chosen you for his 'sympathy.'

And there you go again, mindlessly parroting the GOP hate mongers like Beck and Sowell, etc,. and their tactics of out of context quote mining and the half-truth.

The context of the highlighted quote was SATIRE, which was ALSO reported by British newspapers who "got it" but deliberately left out by you and your fellow deceivers.
While some in the British press believed Shaw to be serious and vilified him, these of course are the only reports the CON$ervoFascists ever cite, others like The Globe and The Evening News recognized the tongue in cheek nature of his lecture and reported the lecture correctly as a "SKIT" on the dreams of eugenicists. These reports are NEVER cited by the CON$ervoFascist deceivers knowing pinheads like you will never look any further than the half-truths CON$ cite. Of course that requires you to ignore the fact that Shaw was first and foremost a SATIRIST!!!

So in typical fashion, you counter your misrepresentation Shaw's eugenics by women choosing "supermen" to mate with as "State forced breeding," with a misrepresentation of satire as seriousness.
No surprise there!

Your ignorace continues, unabated.

This is a good thing, since anyone who reads both our posts will receive a clear picture of the rectitude of both positions.

 

[Woyzeck]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

First of all, you have the echo chamber of academe, which pretty much lives and dies by its "peer review" processes, which are a political as you can get. Not remocrat/depublican political, but political in the sense that you quite often have to tell the "peers" to whom you're submitting your work what they want to hear, in order to have your research get .

When the group of insiders gets tight enough and exclusive enough, you then open things wide for what has happened in the CRU e-mail and computer code scandal, where the work of just about everyone is considered suspect, because of of their further research being tainted by being based upon purposefully skewed numbers from up the line.

Which is a good tidbit of information, but doesn't provide much reasoning for making it all up. Yes, there's politics, people-to-people conflict in the realm of science, but it doesn't explain much on why they would make it up. Because other scientists want them to? Okay, but then why would those scientists want them to support global warming in the first place if it doesn't exist? It's a lot of work just the lulz.

Then, there's the motivation to keep the funding flowing in for your "research. Since most of the globalclimatecoolerwarmering "scientists" don't have jobs in the real world creating products other people want, they have to rely upon panhandling from politicians and shaking down alumni associations at the various institutions where they are employed. Subsequently, there's no money in coming out and saying "No problem folks, it's not nearly as bad as we thought!" or "Oooops, silly us...it was a natural phenomenon all along!"...Think of it as the climate science version of Ghostbusters.

So are you suggesting that the scientists are embezzling the money they get from their research? It would seem if they were making it all up and wanted the money and to keep having it all rolling in, they'd all have been doing that instead of wasting it on experiments. Just skimming a bit off the top. Or something, otherwise they'd be the laziest and dumbest frauds to ever exist. All that work for no extra gain? Unlikely.

Of course you'd need some evidence to prove the scientists are doing so.

The problem with the Ghostbusters analogy is the ghosts in Ghostbusters actually ended up being real... mhm yeah.

Of course, you cannot possibly discount the egos involved....Nothing like believing that you're saving all of humanity to really ramp up the bias and look for evidence that you're right, while ignoring or discounting everything that may prove you in error.

And those are just off the top of my head.

Link or its not true. You're basing an awful lot of your argument over your perceptions of the global warming scientists as a whole, and painting a very broad brush of a group of people that includes scientists from around the globe. You posit that global warming scientists are frauds, but they're putting up an awful lot of work for mere fraud with no apparent extra gain other than 'egos' or 'to keep funding rolling in' for something which is a fraud. The numbers just don't add up in the end that they would do this.

Because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil Jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in US taxpayers dollars (and that does NOT include what he has recieved from the UK taxpayer). Mann just got another 500,000 US taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the AGW crowd has been able to defraud the US taxpayer of over 100 BILLION dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Are they personally taking in a lot of money for it? Or is it going to the further continuation of their research? Is there proof, undeniable proof from a credible source, that's its gone into their personal pocket? Or do you just feel like they've defrauded taxpayers out of their cash because you don't believe in their research?

 

[westwall]

so, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in us taxpayers dollars (and that does not include what he has recieved from the uk taxpayer). mann just got another 500,000 us taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the agw crowd has been able to defraud the us taxpayer of over 100 billion dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Liar!!!!!!

Really? That's the best you can do? What an ignoramous.....how sadly pathetic you are.

Here's your proof if you dare to read it...which somehow I rather doubt.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en#

 

[Oddball]

Link or its not true. You're basing an awful lot of your argument over your perceptions of the global warming scientists as a whole, and painting a very broad brush of a group of people that includes scientists from around the globe. You posit that global warming scientists are frauds, but they're putting up an awful lot of work for mere fraud with no apparent extra gain other than 'egos' or 'to keep funding rolling in' for something which is a fraud. The numbers just don't add up in the end that they would do this.

Like I already said and implied, the ones basing their further research on the jimmied numbers are more than likely acting in good faith. Moreover, the inner circle at the IPCC has been caught red-handed both using "evidence" from unscientific opinion pieces and making up some statistics out of whole cloth...In those instances, the motivation is less important to me than the facts at hand.

But you asked for reasoning that could be behind making up the whole thing, not for definitive evidence.

 

[westwall]

So, who'd like to explain the reasoning behind scientists allegedly making the global warming/climate change facts up? Why are they bothering if none of it is true? It seems like an awful lot of fibbing just for the lulz.

First of all, you have the echo chamber of academe, which pretty much lives and dies by its "peer review" processes, which are a political as you can get. Not remocrat/depublican political, but political in the sense that you quite often have to tell the "peers" to whom you're submitting your work what they want to hear, in order to have your research get .

When the group of insiders gets tight enough and exclusive enough, you then open things wide for what has happened in the CRU e-mail and computer code scandal, where the work of just about everyone is considered suspect, because of of their further research being tainted by being based upon purposefully skewed numbers from up the line.

Which is a good tidbit of information, but doesn't provide much reasoning for making it all up. Yes, there's politics, people-to-people conflict in the realm of science, but it doesn't explain much on why they would make it up. Because other scientists want them to? Okay, but then why would those scientists want them to support global warming in the first place if it doesn't exist? It's a lot of work just the lulz.



So are you suggesting that the scientists are embezzling the money they get from their research? It would seem if they were making it all up and wanted the money and to keep having it all rolling in, they'd all have been doing that instead of wasting it on experiments. Just skimming a bit off the top. Or something, otherwise they'd be the laziest and dumbest frauds to ever exist. All that work for no extra gain? Unlikely.

Of course you'd need some evidence to prove the scientists are doing so.

The problem with the Ghostbusters analogy is the ghosts in Ghostbusters actually ended up being real... mhm yeah.

Of course, you cannot possibly discount the egos involved....Nothing like believing that you're saving all of humanity to really ramp up the bias and look for evidence that you're right, while ignoring or discounting everything that may prove you in error.

And those are just off the top of my head.

Link or its not true. You're basing an awful lot of your argument over your perceptions of the global warming scientists as a whole, and painting a very broad brush of a group of people that includes scientists from around the globe. You posit that global warming scientists are frauds, but they're putting up an awful lot of work for mere fraud with no apparent extra gain other than 'egos' or 'to keep funding rolling in' for something which is a fraud. The numbers just don't add up in the end that they would do this.

Because they make busloads of money off of it. Phil Jones alone has raked in 22.6 million in US taxpayers dollars (and that does NOT include what he has recieved from the UK taxpayer). Mann just got another 500,000 US taxpayer dollars. The list is endless. So far the AGW crowd has been able to defraud the US taxpayer of over 100 BILLION dollars over the last 10 years. An they have nothing to show for it but some "maybe this will happen or this could possibly happen."

Are they personally taking in a lot of money for it? Or is it going to the further continuation of their research? Is there proof, undeniable proof from a credible source, that's its gone into their personal pocket? Or do you just feel like they've defrauded taxpayers out of their cash because you don't believe in their research?

Of course some must go for their research, however it has been 12 years since anything truly useful has come out of the AGW research centers. Everything since then has been geared toward frightening the public. I was once a very big believer in the AGW theory but the more I researched the issue the less I believed what they had to say. My scientific background in geology allows me to see when things don't add up. I chose geology as my field because it is a very eclectic science, we must be conversant with physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. because of the various minerals and physical processes we are working with.

But now after 30 plus years of work in the field I am very competant to spot the fallacies in their argument. How much money goes into their personal pocket? I don't know. A good forensic audit would go a long way towards figuring it out though.

 

[Woyzeck]

Of course some must go for their research, however it has been 12 years since anything truly useful has come out of the AGW research centers. Everything since then has been geared toward frightening the public. I was once a very big believer in the AGW theory but the more I researched the issue the less I believed what they had to say. My scientific background in geology allows me to see when things don't add up. I chose geology as my field because it is a very eclectic science, we must be conversant with physics, chemistry, biology, mathematics etc. because of the various minerals and physical processes we are working with.

If some goes to research, then where's the rest going? Can you truly say they are wasting that money with that research? How is it being wasted? Where is it going? If they were frauds, wouldn't the media have hopped on this juicy money/embezzlement/fraud case already and followed the money like Woodward and Bernstein?

That's great that you have a college degree and background in geology, but just saying it doesn't make your argument stronger on the 'net. You'd have to use it to strength your argument by using what you learn and do in that field.

But now after 30 plus years of work in the field I am very competant to spot the fallacies in their argument. How much money goes into their personal pocket? I don't know. A good forensic audit would go a long way towards figuring it out though.

Ah-huh, why should I believe you if you're just accusing them of something without anything but "I don't agree with their findings" to back it up?