Of course we always hope for the best–but scientists are now becoming prostitutes and their societies are housed in bordellos frequented by government agents with big bank accounts.
Let’s recall that Richard Feynman recommends skepticism and careful self evaluation and criticism, avoidance of intellectual passion, the invaluable attitude of questioning skepticism.
So how does the AGU become the home of Cargo Cult Scientists, and land on “consensus” science?
Why is censorship and intimidation the strategy for AGU leadership–can’t stand the light or the heat?
Well I suspect that the reason the debate and the question are over has to do with 20 billion being spent by government agencies on stables and feed for the prize stallions of the professional group.
20 billion is 20 thousand millions–that’ll buy some prostitution of even the top layer of the professions. Enough to buy a good segment of pertinent scientific community. How many earthshaking climate scientists can there be–a few thousand, with lots of small fry wanting to get in the higher echelons that get the big bucks, saying the right things while they wait in the anteroom.
http://www.conservativeblog.org/amyridenour/2014/4/12/why-is-the-american-geophysical-union-prioritizing-climate-a.html?utm_content=buffer7374a&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter.com&utm_campaign=buffer
I can’t speak for dead men, so I don’t know if Feynman would be offended. Not that it would make a lick of difference. I don’t associate vulgar language with PhDs. I associate vulgar language with grade-school dropouts. I’m telling you strait up. The crude reference to prostitutes does NOT strengthen your argument. Not now. Not ever. If you want to have your views respected, leave the salacious language in the bar and the locker room, not in public commentary.
I would suggest, based on what you wrote hear, that you are in agreement that the AGU is whoring for money. You are offended by my choice of words. Prostitutes, whores. Do you think Richard Feynman would be offended?????
naaaaaah. Richard would agree with my choice.
i am quite comfortable with choosing strong words to describe criminal and civil dishonesty by people who are supposed to be committed to professionalism.
i can live with what Isay. You, my friend, and I think ally, have to understand this is a battle to the death with evil and dishonest people.
As harsh as you might consider my reponses, consider the result of any action that presumes that the evil people are just mistaken. . .
No. Prostitution is sex for pay. Your description of climate change politics is fair, yet none of what you said describes prostitution. Calling AGW prostitution is an insult to women who sell sex for a living. Sexual terminology doesn’t make your argument stronger. Crude language makes it easier to dismiss what you’ve said as an uncouth, unintelligent rant. If all you want to do is make rude noises, press on as you have. If you want to win your arguments, use civil language and accurate terminology.
Prostitution describes it. 20 billion dollars a year in gov spending to support the climate warming fanatics has compromised the AGU and all the other major scientific organizations, university faculties and resulted in censorship of scientists who point out the bad science that the “consensus” scientists support.
You can call it conflict of interest, inappropriate influence if you want and cargo cult science–I prefer prostitution. That’s what it is and they know what they are doing. The political/gov/money people that are pulling their strings are willing to use the influence to compromise integrity of science, because they are committed to ends justify means and warming gives them leverage for political and economic power and control. The left is about power and political control and destroying traditional and institutional entities. No where is the left more in evidence than the Academy and academic professional organizations. .
Scientists are compromised and helping the left out with “models” and loose talk or “predictions” about apocalyptic warming.
What planet are you living on? Should i soften my criticism so they will start acting more rationally and scientifically? We are way beyond that. .
I call em as I see em and I use strong language because it is a scandal of major proportions. They are influenced by gov money and the academic and scientific community. They are not virtuous professional scientists, they are prostitutes and they violate basic rules of science and inquiry and have for many years.. Money does that.
Irrational hyperbole on their part does not justify irrational hyperbole on your part. The prostitution remarks severely undercut your argument. Why should anyone take you seriously?