Oh, No, No – Anything But That

ScreenHunter_8770 Apr. 21 23.03

blah, blah, blah ….. all the usual propaganda

The one thing they won’t ever do is give skeptics a chance to speak for themselves.

ScreenHunter_8768 Apr. 21 23.03

How to Handle Doubts about Evolution, Global Warming, Multiverses: Teach the Controversy! | Cross-Check, Scientific American Blog Network

About stevengoddard

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

38 Responses to Oh, No, No – Anything But That

  1. Marsh says:

    ” The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing “.
    ( Edmund Burke )
    This certainly applies to AGW fraud; where good men & women should do something!

  2. sabretoothed says:

    Send Freeman in 😛 This clown thinks he’s smarter then Freeman? https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BiKfWdXXfIs

  3. Aphan says:

    Who is John Horgan?

    • Gail Combs says:

      John Horgan is an American science journalist best known for his 1996 book The End of Science. He is Director of the Center for Science Writings at Stevens Institute of Technology, Hoboken, New Jersey.

      He seems to be a bit of a nutter

      Books

      Rational Mysticism: Dispatches from the Border Between Science and Spirituality
      John Horgan seeks out experts from a wide range of fields, ranging from neurochemistry to theology, in an effort to get to the bottom of mysticism. Can mysticism be reconciled with science, and, more broadly, with reason? If so, what sort of truth would a rational mysticism give us? What sort of consolation? These are the questions that Rational Mysticism addresses. “A marvelous book… Horgan tackles this impossible subject journalistically –critically but with an open heart.” Dick Teresi, New York Times Book Review, March 23, 2003.

      The End of Science: Facing the Limits of Science in the Twilight of the Scientific Age
      “[In this] intellectually bracing, sweepingly reported, often brilliant and sometimes bullying book, John Horgan makes the powerful case that the best and most exciting scientific discoveries are behind us.” Natalie Angier, New York Times Book Review, front page review
      http://www.johnhorgan.org/works.htm

    • Robertv says:

      ‘If I shunned everyone who holds what I consider to be irrational beliefs, I’d have very few friends left.’

      • Gail Combs says:

        Robert,
        I have zero problems with friends who I consider to hold irrational beliefs. Generally it is harmless.

        However that is a heck of a lot different than the current situation where irrational beliefs are force fed to the public and worse to a generation of school children in order to enslave them.

        Between Climategate and 18+ years of no warming, anyone claiming a position of authority and pontificating to the public on CAGW is not only a scamster but an accessory, before and after the fact to murder.

        The only difference between death by fuel poverty and Stalin’s death by famine is one of degree. Interesting that the New York Times provides propaganda cover for both and now Scientific American is doing the same.

        • Marsh says:

          True , driving CAGW is a Crime by stealth, much worse than any white collar crime in that it operates on the pretence of being morally righteous, when it’s a total contrivance.

          I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s like Nazi dogma & propaganda but there is certainly a Cult like behaviour within it. It is common to witness mental illness in the form of OCD.

          The absolutism with settled Science and Undemocratic stance of the Order exceeds anything in my experience. With the few friends into that dogma ; I avoid the issue.

          I have to admit , I was naive to think that the Failed Predictions & Cooling Evidence
          aside from the CO2 nonsense, would have the Media on side, exposing AGW fraud.

          The most influential nation on Earth ; the USA, is holding CAGW as a Mantra above all at the expense of its people & misleading the rest of the world ; complete madness.

          Sorry , I’m preaching to the converted…

  4. Truthseeker says:

    My new favourite saying …

    Truth is truth, even if nobody believes it.
    A lie is a lie, even if everybody believes it

  5. cheshirered says:

    Tony, here’s another along similar lines, from our old friend Cookie. Note the Guardian’s choice of the word ‘demolish’. Doesn’t sound very reasoned or objective, does it?

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/climate-consensus-97-per-cent/2015/apr/21/university-offering-free-online-course-to-demolish-climate-denial

    • Wow… you gave me a GREAT Idea…

      University Course offering “Critical Analysis of Global Warming and Climate Change..”

      Propose and offer Big U Courses based on Tony’s work!! Let students analyze current Climate Models, actual Temperature Measurements across time… Tide Gage data… Polar Ice Comparisons over time… Climate History… make Students research Climate History and chart actual Climate Measurements.. reach their OWN Conclusions!!

      • Marsh says:

        Although you are making “light” of the situation ; it’s exactly what’s wanted for real !
        OWN conclusions is the best part… pity you can’t arrange it.

    • Dave N says:

      The hypocrisy… it burnnnnnnnsssss!!

      What is worse is that Bill probably doesn’t even realise it

      • Are you calling him a dunce? Bill Nye is an educated man of great courage, willing to say controversial things to Rachel Maddow:

        “The main thing is, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change got a Nobel Prize! They got a scientific prize for making a discovery! They didn’t get a minor award. This is a big deal! They discovered climate change, through all kinds of evidence!”

        • Gail Combs says:

          Rachel looks like she would like to be anywhere else but on a TV screen with Nye.

        • Winnipeg Boy says:

          Correction: they invented global warming.

        • _Jim says:

          Nye is a TOTAL idiot and tool.

          The Nobel Peace Prize in 2007* was awarded jointly to the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and Albert Arnold Gore (Algore).

          This is a *political* price – nothing, nada, zilch, zero to do with the Nobel prize for SCIENCE.

          AND it wasn’t for ‘a discovery’, it was: “for their [IPCC et al] efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change”

          Geesh .,, these ppl are idiots …

          * http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/2007/

  6. markstoval says:

    “The one thing they won’t ever do is give skeptics a chance to speak for themselves.”

    If they told the public what we really think and why, they would be telling them the facts that lead us to believe what we do. That would be the end of their fantasy delusion of global warming. So, they don’t do that.

  7. bleakhouses says:

    The whole purpose of that mess is to conflate CAGW skepticism with evolution denial. Its a giant straw man.

    • Scott says:

      It’s an excellent quote though since it lists Multiverse in with global warming and evolution. Multiverses are not “settled science” at all. Any physicist will tell you that Multiverses are just one theory out there.

      • Andy DC says:

        “Multiverse” is a nice buzz word for pseudo-intellectuals, not to be confused with another buzz word, “multiversities” which are actually “multinurseries”.

      • MikeW says:

        Horgan is a priest for the Scientism cult, which preaches CAGW as one of its unassailable doctrines. Could it be he is attempting to add Mutliverses as another cult doctrine?

      • oeman50 says:

        I saw a movie with the “Underverse” in it. I think it had a guy named Riddick in it.

      • bleakhouses says:

        Well Im more skeptical of CAGW than I am of a multiverse(s); and there is in my opinion no question about evolution. A few years ago there was a spectacular radiolab podcast episode regarding multiverse theory; I listened to it twice myself and then again with my then 10 year old with whom I have had the great pleasure of having a number of discussions about the theory since. I am offended that they think I am a fool because I don’t believe their dogma.

        http://www.radiolab.org/story/91859-the-multi-universes/

    • Brian H says:

      Don’t forget the obvious link between evolution denial and defending tobacco companies. Any idiot can see it.

      Oh, wait …

      Only idiots can see it.

  8. Dave N says:

    Apparently skeptics doubt evolution, gravity, heliocentricity, global round-ness, vaccines etc…

    Lump Horgan in with Lew and the other alarmist morons.

  9. Chris Barron says:

    “Good luck in the search for a debate. And good luck to John or anyone else who has the innards to engage in debate. I am a geologist who inadvertently became involved in Origins Science Education — Geology is Origins Science”

    Doesn’t he know that in education circles the subjects of geology and geography are affectionately called ‘colouring in’

  10. JeffU says:

    How do you deal with someone that ignores empirical data?

  11. mbabbitt says:

    The Multiverse hypothesis is typical of overreach and is often more an ideological stance – it hardly helps their efforts as it can never be tested or confirmed, by definition. No data is possible and many mainstream physicists make that exact point – the multiverse hypothesis is a fantasy of a possibility (https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/you-think-theres-a-multiverse-get-real.792636/). The arguments for God (like the Cosmological argument) rely on premises that one holds are more likely true than not and have evidence to back them up. The Multiverse is often used as a model of the gaps effort although, importantly, there are religious physicists who see it as another expression of God’s creativity.) But often: We cannot explain the extreme fine tuning we find in our universe/galaxy/planet so there must another way to explain our incredibly great good fortune in naturalistic terms. Of course, the multiverse itself would need to be explained using the same criteria and it is often just a way of avoiding any talk of a timeless, spaceless, omnipotent, and transcendent supernatural agent by people wedded to materialistic naturalism.

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