Censoring Ideas

I had an experience early in my adult life which shaped my view of intellectual diversity. My boss at Los Alamos National Labs was an older chemist and a WWII veteran who many thought was shell shocked. I thought he was nuts too, until almost all of his whacky ideas turned out to be correct.

Now I don’t judge smart people with whacky sounding ideas. I even believed in global warming for almost three decades.

I censor people for wasting time, refusing to process information, making personal attacks, obscenity and threats. But never for ideas that I don’t understand …. yet.

Science progresses because of people who dare to deviate. Censorship is for ideologues like Barack Obama, who don’t have the faintest clue how science works.

It doesn’t create jobs when you go after scientists, and you try to offer your own alternative theories of how things work and engage in litigation around stuff that isn’t political,”

“It has to do with what’s true. It has to do with facts. You don’t argue with facts.

Obama Hits Cuccinelli on Climate Change Skepticism | InsideClimate News

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

27 Responses to Censoring Ideas

  1. R. de Haan says:

    “I censor people for wasting time, refusing to process information, making personal attacks, obscenity and threats. But never for ideas that I don’t understand …. yet.

    Science progresses because of people who dare to deviate. Censorship is for ideologues like Barack Obama, who don’t have the faintest clue how science works.

    “It doesn’t create jobs when you go after scientists, and you try to offer your own alternative theories of how things work and engage in litigation around stuff that isn’t political,”

    “It has to do with what’s true. It has to do with facts. You don’t argue with facts.”

    I really wonder how Cuccinelli responded to Obama’s BS.

  2. omanuel says:

    Thanks, Steven, for your tolerance.

    Those most intolerant of others have unwittingly accepted deceptive models advanced after WWII to hide the source of energy in cores of atoms and stars:

    1. Francis William Aston’s valid nuclear packing fraction was replaced with Carl Friedrich von Weizsäcker’s deceptive nuclear binding energy.

    2. William Harkins’ conclusion that elemental abundances are controlled by nuclear stability was replaced with the standard solar model of H-filled stars. H-1 has the highest potential energy (M/A) of all stable nuclides, 7.289 MeV more than the average nucleon energy in C-12.

    See: Why the model of Hydrogen-filled stars is obsolete:

    Click to access 0410569.pdf

  3. KevinK says:

    “your own alternative theories of how things work”

    OK, here you go; the “greenhouse effect” merely acts as a large hybrid “optical/thermal” delay line. Given the dimensions (a few miles) and the velocities (speed of light) involved this delay amounts to a fen tens of milliseconds. Since the period of the incoming energy is “one day” (about 86 million milliseconds) this slight delay HAS NO EFFECT ON THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE OF THE EARTH.

    The “greenhouse effect” simply changes the “response time” of the gases in the atmosphere. They warm up slightly faster when energy arrives (sunrise or the dissipation of clouds) and cool off slightly slower when energy departs (sunset or the arrival of clouds).

    If you study how an optical integrating sphere operates (with what a climate scientist would call “100 percent radiative forcing”) you quickly realize it’s just a delay line. Of course this delay can only be observed with a “pulsed” input, you cannot see it with a steady state input (sunlight), but the delay is there never the less.

    The climate scientists have been chasing a “chimera” for decades now. I do feel sorry for the folks that “hooked their wagon” to this hoax.

    Cheers, Kevin.

    • The hoax is not that the greenhouse effect exists. It does. The delay you describe warms the atmosphere. The hoax is the relative amount that CO2 has compared to H2O, and all the myriad other hoaxes they invent, too numerous to list here or anywhere, that insult the intelligence of the public.

      The global warming hoax is based on the premise that enough people failed 8th grade earth studies class that they can be blinded with science and baffled with bullshit so they will vote for the political candidate they sponsor. It’s a ploy to win votes. It’s also a fundraising scheme.

  4. gofer says:

    George Clooney attacks skeptics:

    “Actor George Clooney declared global warming skeptics to be “stupid” and “ridiculous.” Clooney made the remarks to reporters on the eve of Typhoon Haiyan hitting the Philippines. He was attending the BAFTA Britannia Awards in Beverly Hills on Saturday night November 9.

    “Well it’s just a stupid argument,” Clooney said on the red carpet, referring to the dissenters of man-made global warming.

    “If you have 99 percent of doctors who tell you ‘you are sick’ and 1 percent that says ‘you’re fine,’ you probably want to hang out with, check it up for the 99. You know what I mean? The idea that we ignore that we are in some way involved in climate change is ridiculous. What’s the worst thing that happens? We clean up the earth a little bit?” –Climate Depot

    • Traitor In Chief says:

      Well, Georgie is a tad slow. He still thinks Barry is a legitimate President.

    • My favorite argument in favor of AGW….”The scientists all say it and I flunked 8th grade science so it must be true”

    • What George Clooney really meant was, “If you go to a hospital and 99% of the doctors are corrupt and say you’re seriously ill when you aren’t and tell you that you have to take very expensive medicine which doesn’t do anything, and 1% of doctors are honest and say you aren’t sick at all, you should take the medicine because what’s the worst it can do? It’s just a sugar pill. The worst that can happen is you give them all your money.”

      • Colorado Wellington says:

        Even Clooney’s analogy needed a fix to make sense. God bless him.

      • David A says:

        What he really meant to say was if you ask 10000 doctors a really stupid question, such as “am I sick?” and ask them to do their diagnoses based on a global computer model of people with any health issues, most will not respond. Now if you eliminate the responses you do not like because they were just G.P doctors, and you only accept answers from less then one percent of the initial survey, then 97 percent of those Doctors will tell you that you probably have some health issue. If you then go around saying please give me surgery and radical chemo therapy, a rational person may conclude that you are indeed sick, that is mentally sick, and I would agree.

  5. NikFromNYC says:

    The pivotal reality is a highly successful hundred million dollar a year PR war aimed directly at skeptics, precisely meant to deflect smart college educated liberal activists from ever taking them seriously. You are allowing yourself to be too easily stereotyped, Steve Godwin, dragging the perception of skepticism down with you.

    Tony gets it, and from WUWT in 2010:

    REPLY: It has been, but in other places, and it didn’t get “legs” as they say in the news business. It’s been on Scienceblogs/deltoid in comments in 2008 as well as Physorg.com http://www.physorg.com/news163863704.html in 2009. It is an ugly situation, and had I known about it I would have banned Dr. Manuel long before I did. Unfortunately like you, the comment from “oneuniverse” is the first I heard of it.

    – Anthony

    • If your friends are not intelligent to understand the relatively simple data I present here, then there is really nothing I can do for them.

      • And the PR war is not aimed directly at global warming skeptics, but at all who would dare to disagree with the Insane Left narrative (as so well represented by Obama), which has co-opted an incompetent, and fraudulent, scientific “consensus”. Goddard’s clarity and simplicity are well received by any who are not deluded by that war–unfortunately, they are in the minority, and even those who feel themselves free of the outright lies are weakened by having been miseducated into believing incorrect physical theories (like Morgan Wright’s belief in the “greenhouse effect”, above–the truth is, there is no greenhouse effect, defined as an increase in global mean surface temperature with an increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide; in fact, the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air has no effect upon that temperature whatsoever, either to warm or to cool, mainly because the air is warmed to its equilibrium state by direct absorption of incident solar infrared radiation, not by a warmed planetary surface). However, what is going on in our world today goes beyond any single, narrow debate, whether scientific or political–it’s not even just about Left vs. Right; it’s about a tendency in everyone to cling, naturally but thoughtlessly, to their own pet, false dogmas, which they have unwittingly been schooled in throughout their lives.

        Steven’s post here is beautifully clear, but children (and childish adult minds) instinctively like to muddy clear water, mess up a pristine view, as some of the comments here demonstrate. I well remember, once when I was a kid, walking along an embankment, with an untouched mudbank below (this was not out in the country, but in the middle of town, in fact along the side of the school parking lot). I began throwing rocks into that plain mudbank, until finally the sheer ugliness of what I was producing suddenly dawned on me. (A few years later, as a senior in high school, I wrote about that event in Creative Writing, and got an A+ for my still-shining evocation of it.) I wish all those now arguing in accordance with the false consensus–in both science and politics–would have such a dawning moment, to the ugliness of what they are doing, and grow up instantly in their minds.

        • Harry Huff I loved your blog but I must tell you, there is a greenhouse effect. It’s mediated by water vapor and it’s why, on a cloudless night in Arizona the temperature drops from 90 to 45 and on a cloudless night in Alabama it drops from 90 to 89

          arizona dew point 45
          alabama dew point 75
          Southern Cal 36
          UC Berkeley 17

    • … precisely meant to deflect smart college educated liberal activists from ever taking [skeptics] seriously.

      Nik, it takes a very special frame of mind to assemble the above sentence. For your own sake, you need to get out of NY, at least for a while. Been there enough times to know.

      • David A says:

        I disagree with some of what Nik says, but here I think there is great truth here. It is not the only reason for the propaganda war, but having a daughter that has gone through Oxford and UCSD, I can tell you that a closed mind unable to have a rational discussion on this issue is the definite result, if not the intent.

        • I agree, David. Also, living more than a quarter of a century in a “liberal” college town, I’m certain it’s not a random result. It was and is the intent. The Left’s march through the institutions was a complete victory. I am personally more immune to it because of my early history but it is still hard at times to take the crap. Nik is probably not immune yet. He should get out of NYC, at least for a while, and return only if he thinks he can live as a dissident there. It can be done and Steven Goddard is a good example. Fort Collins used to be quite different only 25 years ago but it’s closing the gap on Boulder’s leftist insanity with every passing year.

        • David A says:

          I visited my Uncle in Boulder in 1972-3/ He is retired, but a former major academic; philosophy and poly sci, speaks about 6 language with PHDs from three nations, and deeply conservative, One of his publication titles, “The Mythopoetic Origins of Marxism.” He used to bring students home to debate. At 17 I found it very entertaining.

        • David A says:

          I forgot to say, he was a professor at University of Boulder at the time.

        • Colorado Wellington says:

          Yes, Boulder changed. I came too late to experience the old liberal atmosphere that welcomed conservative ideas. In today’s illiberal academia it takes a special “administrative effort” to bring in a “conservative” professor.


      • omanuel says:


        A “a very special frame of mind” allowed a nuclear geo-chemist at the Imperial University of Tokyo, Dr. Kazuo Kuroda, to notice when the most stable and abundant atom in the solar system (Fe-56) during WWII was suddenly replaced after WWII ended by the best nuclear fuel with the highest energy (mass) per nucleon (H-1).

  6. joekano76 says:

    “I censor people for wasting time, refusing to process information, making personal attacks, obscenity and threats. But never for ideas that I don’t understand” – Yeah, ‘You’re spammed.’ No censorship there, eh?

  7. lorne50 says:

    It is remembrance day in Canada LEST WE FORGET those who fought and died so we can be free.

  8. Don’t ban ’em. Just put their comments in moderation pending further information, like lists of people they went to school with, horses they might have owned, political organizations they have considered donating too. You can learn from the IRS.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s