I did, but reasoning often must have evidence to back it up, otherwise why believe the reasoning? You make big claims on a serious issue for me to simply believe you from words alone.
The Death of Real Science
- Thread starter PoliticalChic
- Start date
I did, but reasoning often must have evidence to back it up, otherwise why believe the reasoning? You make big claims on a serious issue for me to simply believe you from words alone.
Ericredscousin
Rookie
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8
- 2
- 1
So I guess you are in favor of textbooks being re-written to include creationism to taught to our children. Or that whales should be re-classified as fish because that is what Jonus was supposedly swollowed by.
I am sure China and the rest of the science based countries are really hoping we follow the new/old Republican science to our children.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
What you're doing here is what we call "moving the goalposts".
But like I already said, the motivations are of far less importance to me than the fact that the people at the top of the pyramid have been caught dead-to-right making up numbers from measurement stations that don't exist, using unreviewed opinion pieces from environmentalist magazines, blatantly evading FOIA requests, destroying research and squelching research that doesn't reach their alarmist conclusions.
Those things have been proved...The motivation part is sheer speculation and largely irrelevant.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
John Christy (0255 - 02:43:15 in the file embedded above, 31 minutes in total; questions begin on 02:24:08) has explained how the climate scientists (and especially IPCC lead authors) have become gatekeepers and their community has become a victim of groupthink, exaggerations, Hollywood movies; how his papers and opinions were deliberately ignored by the process; how good an idea it is to listen to Steve McIntyre; how unpredictable the climate is....
The Reference Frame: John Christy: an excellent witness in Montreal
Ericredscousin
Rookie
- Jun 21, 2010
- 8
- 2
- 1
I am a liberal, and I am not satified with the status quo.
To me, being a liberal means that a strong, transperant, non-corrupt government, run by intelligent people is the backbone of any thriving society. This govenernment should run by laws that are enacted by the the representatives that the majority of the people elect. And once those laws are enacted, all the people need to live by them in.
I believe in a free press that is not surpressed by the govenment or any other ruling class.
I believe in helping people who are in need. NOT giving out handouts, but a hand up.
I believe in fairness. In the courts, in the schools, in the job market.
I believe in a strong and large middle class. Show me a society with no middle class, and I will show you a third world country.
I believe in individual responsibilty, as do you.
I believe in resolving problems using non-violent means whenever possible.
I believe in science and the scientific method.
I believe in civility and the power of free thinking.
Could go on, but you get the point.
What you get the point.
What points above can you argue with?
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.
Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.
Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Like I said, keep posting because you keep making a complete fool of yourself with each post.John Christy (02
The Reference Frame: John Christy: an excellent witness in Montreal
As you well know, it was Christy along with his partner in crime Spencer at the UAH who got caught red handed fabricating the ONLY data deniers have ever had against global warming by deliberately using the OPPOSITE SIGN to calibrate for diurnal satellite drift.
I have pointed this out to you and the rest of the deniers here numerous times in numerous threads on this board so you can't play dumb. You know Christy has no credibility and therefore you make your accusations against honest scientists to muddy the waters and make real scientists look as bad to the uninformed as your fellow deniers.
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
Dante
"The Libido for the Ugly"
The media has been devouring and supporting the AGW agenda almost from its inception.
After 30 years and 100 billion dollars they should have something better than maybe now don't you think? It cost the equivalent of 23 billion to develop the atomic weapons and that morphed into nuclear power. That took all of three years from August of 1942 to August of 1945. That was a wholly new scientific endeavor.
This AGW agenda has had 100 billion dollars thrown at it over a period of 30 years and they have nothing to show for it. Nothing. They have a whole lot of mights, and a passel full of possibly's. But they have no certainties. Not one.
If I tell you that if you mix ilmenite into a sandstone you will get an orange color, or if you mix limonite you'll get a yellowish color you can pretty much take that to the bank that that is what will occur.
The AGW folks on the other hand can tell you nothing. They will say that if we keep doing a certain thing then this other thing may happen. That my good friend is not science that is how bunko artists try to keep out of jail. "honest officer I didn't say it was a Van Gogh, I said it might be a Van Gogh".
The one certain thing that is a common thread throughout ALL of the AGW agenda however
is money. And how to take it from you and give it to them.
Here is just one example of how it is done.
RealClearPolitics - How to Expose a Warmist: Andrew Bolt Interviews Australia's Al Gore
In a nutshell, the warmist invests heavily in a particular "green industry" then coaxes the government to pass legislation that requires you to buy that particular product. Al Gore alone has made 98 million dollars from his investments in the carbon trading schemes.
There is an excellent thread in the environmental section that lists the various groups invested heavily in "green technologies" that only require the governemnts to mandate them so that you have to buy them.
Sounds real fair to me. How about you?
Oddball
Unobtanium Member
I saw that earlier today...Funny stuff.
I agree with everything you posted but one. Who is to define what is fair? Whenever that word "fair" gets bandied about it usually means that if you work harder than the other folks out there, some bastard wants to take your extra money away from you to give to those who choose to not work as hard. That's the only thing I have issue with what you posted.
REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.
Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.
Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!
I see now that you clearly don't understand how academia works. I will make it simple for you because clearly you are mentally challenged. First you will please note that Phil Jones is named in every line. Sometimes he is listed first, sometimes he is second or third. You will also please notice that there is a GRANT TITLE (I placed that in bold so you could more clearly see it in case you are blind) they use the grant money to write a article (say for a journal or other scientific paper or book) that will most commonly have the GRANT TITLE as the title of the paper. The order of the authors is very important. 1st Author is considered to be the main individual responsible for that particular paper. The remaining authors are usually (but not allways) listed in the order of contribution to the paper that they have made. In the grant writing world the authors are paid for their "work" namely writing the article. So Phil Jones had his hand out for every one of the grants listed.
If you bother to look further you can then see where the money came from. In all cases these grants were funded by US taxpayer dollars that may have gone direct to Jones, or were routed through the particualr scientific societies or organizations which then gave the money to Jones and crew.
Congratulations on being probably the most scientifically ignorantperson on the planet. Well at least from a 1st world nation. I would'nt expect a Bushman to understand how the system works.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
As I have shown so many times before on these boards, when an America-hating CON$ervoFascist gets caught LYING they simply LIE some more, generally peppered with personal insults and arrogant condescension.I see now that you clearly don't understand how academia works. I will make it simple for you because clearly you are mentally challenged. First you will please note that Phil Jones is named in every line. Sometimes he is listed first, sometimes he is second or third. You will also please notice that there is a GRANT TITLE (I placed that in bold so you could more clearly see it in case you are blind) they use the grant money to write a article (say for a journal or other scientific paper or book) that will most commonly have the GRANT TITLE as the title of the paper. The order of the authors is very important. 1st Author is considered to be the main individual responsible for that particular paper. The remaining authors are usually (but not allways) listed in the order of contribution to the paper that they have made. In the grant writing world the authors are paid for their "work" namely writing the article. So Phil Jones had his hand out for every one of the grants listed.REALLY!!!!
Gawd, you are as stupid as Dupe!!!!
And if YOU actually read it you knew you were lying when you made your post.
Your LIE claimed that the 22.6 million came ENTIRELY from the US tax payer and even more money came from the Brits. Yet your own link clearly shows that, first of all, the 22.6 came from more than just the US including the Brits, the Scotts, the EU, and NATO, lie number 1. And secondly many of the grants went to other researchers in addition to Jones, lie number 2.
Again you provide proof that no stat from any CON$ervoFascist can ever be trusted.
Thank you!
If you bother to look further you can then see where the money came from. In all cases these grants were funded by US taxpayer dollars that may have gone direct to Jones, or were routed through the particualr scientific societies or organizations which then gave the money to Jones and crew.
Congratulations on being probably the most scientifically ignorantperson on the planet. Well at least from a 1st world nation. I would'nt expect a Bushman to understand how the system works.
Thank you for again being a perfect example.
The only money coming from the US taxpayers was the less than $2 million that came from 8 grants from the US Dept of Energy, all of which was funded by a GOP controlled Congress and you CON$ always say congress controls the purse strings, and some small fraction of the money from NATO. The rest of the grant money came from the UK, the EU, and one grant from U Mass.
So again you are exposed as a typical CON$ervoFascist SERIAL LIAR.
Thank you yet again.
Last edited:
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
Your deceit continues, unabated, even after you have been exposed to the truth.
The fact remains, Shaw thought that women subconsciously selected the mates that were most likely to give them superior children. He believed that human beings would naturally tend toward biological improvement, without the need for political intervention.
Anyone who reads both of our posts will see that your CON$ervoFascist sources have made a fool of you. As I have said, CON$ lie to your level of ignorance. They knew you would be completely IGNORANT of what Shaw actually stood for and that you would be too LAZY to find out, so they knew you would mindlessly parrot their out of context quotes without ever checking anything they say.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #77
Why, EdattheClinic, don't you recognize left wing spin when you see it?
You should, as you indulge in it so often...
Either you are ignorant of the eugenics movement, and how deeply Shaw was involved, or you are lying to defend one of your idols.
Since the 'lying' label has been co-opted by your side, I'll accept that you are ignorant.
As there is a possibility that Oliver Wendell Holmes is also one of your idols, let's show his view of eugenics as part of your education... OK, I'll admit you are uneducable, so this is for passing readers.
1. In 1927, a young unwed mother named Carrie Buck was sterilized against her will by order of the Supreme Court, decision written by Oliver Wendell Holmes, who said : ”The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes.” Based on the Buck Decision, more than 60 thousand were operated on across the U.S. as late as the 1970’s. And the opinion was adopted in Germany, where, within a year, some 56 thousand German ‘patients’ had been sterilized.
"Ultimately, 60,000 Americans were coercively sterilized — legally and extra-legally. Many never discovered the truth until decades later. Those who actively supported eugenics include America's most progressive figures: Woodrow Wilson, Margaret Sanger and Oliver Wendell Holmes."
War Against the Weak
2. Madison Grant, eugenicist, was responsible for one of the most famous works of scientific racism, “The Passing of the Great Race,” sold some million and a half copies, and played an active role in crafting strong immigration restriction and anti-miscegenation laws in the United States. Grant's works of "scientific racism" have been cited to demonstrate that many of the genocidal and eugenic ideas associated with the Third Reich did not arise specifically in Germany, and in fact that many of them had origins in other countries including the United States. Edwin Black: War Against the Weak. Eugenics and America's Campaign to Create a Master Race, Four Walls Eight Windows: 2003, pp. 259, 273, 274-275, 296
a. Hitler wrote to the president of the American Eugenics Society to ask for a copy of his“The Case for Sterilization.” (Margaret Sanger and Sterilization) German race science stood on American progressive’s shoulders.
b. Many British socialists, including Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, H.G. Wells, John Maynard Keynes, Aldous Huxley, paragons to American progressives, were enthralled with eugenics.
c. “The only fundemental and possible socialism is the socialism of selective breeding of Man.” Shaw advocated forced selective breeding, and stated of the unfit: “I appeal to the chemists to develop a humane gas…deadly but humane…” [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hQvsf2MUKRQ&feature=related]YouTube - George Bernard Shaw Defends Hitler, Mass Murder[/ame]
d. Wells, famous for his calls for ‘liberal fascism,’ and an ‘enlightened Nazism,’ supported the extermination of the ‘unfit’ and announced that in his ‘New Republic,’ “swarms of black and brown, and dirty-white and yellow people” would have to go.
The Forgotten H.G. Wells – waka waka waka
e. John Maynard Keynes served on the British Eugenics Society board of directors, and as late as 1945- even as Nazi concentration camp experiments was being revealed, gushed about eugenics , the 'perfection of the race' as “…the most important, significant and, I would add, genuine branch of sociology which exists.” The great economist John Maynard Keynes: A biography - Telegraph
3. When one considers relying on professionals and experts, whether jurists or medical authorities, to the exclusion of morality, think hard about the following statements. The ‘medical expert’ whose assessment of the Buck family was as follows: “These people belong to the shiftless, ignorant, and worthless class of anti-social whites of the South,” and the this, from Holmes opinion writing for the majority: “It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind.” Social Origins of Eugenics
a. If one needs evidence of Progressivism as fitting neatly into the definition of fascism, consider this from Oliver Wendell Holmes’ 1915 Illinois Law Review article: The “starting point for an ideal law…[would be] the co-ordinated human effort…to build a race.” Let’s admit that conservative religious and political dogma was the single greatest bulwark against eugenic schemes. And, of course, these conservatives, libertarians, orthodox Catholics, among others were considered backward and reactionary, just as today, considered threats to progress. The only vote against the state, in an 8-1 decision was the archconservative and only Catholic on the court, Pierce Butler. “Butler was a Roman Catholic and a Democrat, but was also, most importantly, a political conservative.” Pierce Butler
b. The foremost institution to oppose eugenics was the Catholic Church. It was the fact that Italy was Catholic that reduced the emphasis on eugenics by Italian Fascism, as opposed to the American Progressives and the Nazis.
And today?
4. Now called ‘bioethicists,’ there are new acolytes of eugenics who are ready and able to make decisions about the lives of patients, assigning numerical ‘quality of life’ measurements, and parcel out health care based on the scores. The retarded, handicapped, elderly, infirm would be low on the list. Those who don’t score high enough will surely be deprived of healthcare.
5. "In the emergency stimulus legislation was substantial funding for a Federal Council on Comparative Effectiveness Research, comparative effectiveness research is generally code for limiting care based on the patient's age. Economists are familiar with the formula already in use in the U.K., where the cost of a treatment is divided by the number of years (called QALYS or quality-adjusted life years) the patient is likely to benefit. In the U.K., the formula leads to denying treatments for age-related diseases because older patients have a denominator problem -- fewer years to benefit than younger patients with other diseases."
Defend Your Health Care
So, EdattheClinic, thank you so much for allowing me the opportunity to lay bare the vicious, inhumane nature of eugenics, Shaw, and your philosophy...
When the eugenicists come to take you away as you serve no purpose in life, point out how well you have served as a foil for my exposition.
edthecynic
Censored for Cynicism
- Oct 20, 2008
- 43,044
- 6,885
- 1,830
You can't deny that you were completely ignorant of the difference between Shavian Eugenics and any other kind of eugenics, which is why you swallowed the CON$ervoFascist crapaganda whole, and being too dishonest to admit your ignorance you choose to parrot more Right-wing crap rather than admit the truth.
Again, SHAVIAN Eugenics has nothing to do with state forced breeding, or death chambers but the choices women make in whom they mate with.
Anyone who knows anything about Shaw would have known this and IMMEDIATELY seen through the CON$ervoFascist lies you fell for. You pretend to be a pompous know-it-all, but instead you invariably expose your complete ignorance. You are just too stupid to realize it. To a moron like you, if the word "eugenics" is used then it must all be the same.
PoliticalChic
Diamond Member
- Thread starter
- #79
Now, EdintheAttic, I think it is an infraction to alter another posters comments, and state that as a quote...
you should correct your alteration of "... Blah, blah, blah..." and use my complete quote...
Is there some reason you are afraid to do so?
Could it be that you actually comprehended my essay, and now see the evil side of GB Shaw, that is that he was entirely behind the wholesale slaughter of folks - human beings- with whose life choices he did not agree...and now you are embarrassed to have the name of a psychopath in your sig??
You may actually have a conscience???
Why, I do declare...
HUGGY
I Post Because I Care
EdintheAttic,
Good one.
Good in a lame goody two shoes kinda way..but creative and juvenile which I do appreciate.Similar threads
New Topics
-
Far Right Zionist Rabble Threaten And Kick Woman In New York- Started by Deadstick
- Replies: 5
-
-
-
Poll predicts Reform sweeping THREE mayoral races in huge night for Nigel Farage- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
Xbox goes up by $100 due to Trump’s tariffs- Started by Conservative from Georgia
- Replies: 29
