Posted on 07/20/2017 8:16:17 AM PDT by Heartlander
Global warming, climate change, Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW), et al: the greatest scam in the modern age. This supposed scientific phenomena has lots of names. I just call it BS!
Okay, Bill. You’re older than me, so you first.
OK, Bill...you first.
[[In other words, get rid of the last generation that knows how to think so decisions can be made by people who have been properly indoctrinated.]]
Exactly- they are brainwashing our kids- and it’s working- more than 60% now believe man is causing climate change- and these folks will NOT do the hard work of investigating the false claim themselves- preferring to just take the liar’s words for it-
That’s apparently how science works now- brainwash hte kids and wait for their parents to die so that the leftist agenda can move forward
I assume he includes himself in that sentiment.
IF old Bill got brain cancer and died, far be if for me to ever shed a tear.
What goes around, comes around. Hoping this POS finds that out the hard way.
“In other words, get rid of the last generation that knows how to think so decisions can be made by people who have been properly indoctrinated.”
Nye is a classical Intellectual Yet Idiot, who spends his life telling, us how to think, live our lives and how to vote. Nye is a classical Brown Shirted Intellection Yet Idiot wanting to rule the rest of the world with his so called wisdom.
Nassim Taleb Exposes The World’s “Intellectual-Yet-Idiot” Class!
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities?—?, but their main skills is ability to pass exams written by people like them.
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
What we have been seeing worldwide, from India to the UK to the US, is the rebellion against the inner circle of no-skin-in-the-game policymaking “clerks” and journalists-insiders, that class of paternalistic semi-intellectual experts with some Ivy league, Oxford-Cambridge, or similar label-driven education who are telling the rest of us 1) what to do, 2) what to eat, 3) how to speak, 4) how to think… and 5) who to vote for.
But the problem is the one-eyed following the blind: these self-described members of the “intelligenzia” can’t find a coconut in Coconut Island, meaning they aren’t intelligent enough to define intelligence and fall into circularities?—?but their main skills is capacity to pass exams written by people like them.
With psychology papers replicating less than 40%, dietary advice reversing after 30 years of fatphobia, macroeconomic analysis working worse than astrology, the appointment of Bernanke who was less than clueless of the risks, and pharmaceutical trials replicating at best only 1/3th of the time, people are perfectly entitled to rely on their own ancestral instinct and listen to their grandmothers (or Montaigne and such filtered classical knowledge) with a better track record than these policymaking goons.
Indeed one can see that these academico-bureaucrats wanting to run our lives aren’t even rigorous, whether in medical statistics or policymaking. They can’t tell science from scientism?—?in fact in their eyes scientism looks more scientific than real science. (For instance it is trivial to show the following: much of what the Cass-Sunstein-Richard Thaler types?—?those who want to “nudge” us into some behavior?—?much of what they call “rational” or “irrational” comes from their misunderstanding of probability theory and cosmetic use of first-order models.)
This is an excerpt. To read or copy the full article go to the link below:
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2016-09-16/nassim-taleb-exposes-worlds-intellectual-yet-idiot-class
Vicious malicious Bill Nye should just kill himself, first.
Imagine how much that would instantly improve science,
honesty in the media, and science teaching.
If liberals keep worshipping Gorebull Warming, abortions/ infanticide and having abortions, pushing euthanasia and assisted suicide, eating veggie diets, making friends with Jihadis, having dangerous gay/anal sex, using drugs to cope with life, our descendents will not have to worry about them.
Looks like he should be cast in the next Star Trek movie as Spock’s goofy cousin.
Natural Gas saved a lot of places from the fact that it doesn’t produce ash.
You first, Bill. Take the leadership position and eat the gun.
Nye isn’t the only evil liberal pushing this killing stuff:
Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of Morality
Evolution News and Views ^ | July 19, 2017 | Richard Weikart
Posted on 7/20/2017, 7:21:33 AM by Heartlander
Jerry Coyne, Infanticide, and the Evolution of Morality
Richard Weikart
July 19, 2017
In a recent blog post, already noted by Michael Egnor and Wesley Smith, University of Chicago evolutionary biologist Jerry Coyne not only argued that infanticide and assisted suicide should be permitted, but he insisted that our increasing acceptance of these deeds is a sign of moral improvement in our society. He stated, “This change in views about euthanasia and assisted suicide [i.e., legalization in some states and countries] are [sic] the result of a tide of increasing morality in our world.”
In his book Faith Versus Fact, Coyne made a similar proclamation: “Indeed, secular morality, which is not twisted by adherence to the supposed commands of a god, is superior to most ‘religious’ morality.” (p. 261)
Earlier in Faith Versus Fact, Coyne argued that morality was the product of evolutionary forces, as well as cultural changes. He denied that morality is fixed and objective and decreed that it is malleable. He even makes a big deal out of this argument, claiming that it disproves the existence of God.
It seems to me that Coyne is talking out of both sides of his mouth. There can be no “increasing morality” and no “superior” morality unless there is some objective moral standard, a point that Coyne rejects. Evolution, we are told again and again, has no goal, so any morality it produces has no objective reality. (That’s why the famous evolutionary biologist E.O. Wilson and philosopher of science Michael Ruse called morality “an illusion fobbed off on us by our genes.”)
Of course, one of the other major problems with Coyne’s analysis of morality is that many people see the policies he favors, such as infanticide, as evidence of our moral decline.
So, how does Coyne justify his claim that infanticide and assisted suicide are morally praiseworthy? He relies on arguments that are based on his understanding of evolutionary biology. He claims humans are not a special or unique species, a point he bases on Darwinism. After thus undermining the sanctity-of-life ethic, he states in his blog: “After all, we euthanize our dogs and cats when to prolong their lives would be torture, so why not extend that to humans?”
Does Coyne really believe that we should treat humans like dogs and cats? Given his desire to see the United States embrace progressive public policies similar to those in Scandinavia, I rather doubt it. But let’s test and see.
I have a modest proposal for Coyne to consider. Picture this: Round up all the homeless people in Chicago, sterilize them, and then incarcerate them until someone comes to provide them a home. If no one is willing to take them in after a few weeks, then we can euthanize them. The problem of homelessness would be solved.
I’m confident Coyne will be outraged by this proposal — as he should be. However, this is exactly how we treat dogs. Apparently, Coyne does not think humans should be treated like dogs. Apparently, he recognizes that some things are objectively immoral.
Coyne, like many secular intellectuals, sees morality as non-objective, because he thinks it is produced by random mutations, natural selection, and also changing cultural factors. He uses this moral relativism as a sledgehammer against morality (and religion) that he doesn’t like. But then he turns around to promote a different “progressive” morality and tries to impose that on everyone. This morality, we are assured, is better and more advanced — hence the term “progressive.” It thus claims to be moving toward an objective moral standard. You cannot have it both ways, Dr. Coyne.
For further analysis of Coyne, see pp. 84-87 of my book The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life.
Dr. Weikart is professor of modern European history at California State University, Stanislaus, and Senior Fellow at Discovery Institute’s Center for Science & Culture. He has published six books, including The Death of Humanity: And the Case for Life and Hitler’s Religion: The Twisted Beliefs That Drove the Third Reich.
http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-chat/3570623/posts
The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. - Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. Skepticism is necessary, cynicism is destructive. The skeptic asks for proof, and examines it and accepts it. The cynic asks, “What is truth?” and demands to be believed without real evidence. When real evidence is presented, the cynic is the denier.
Wait.. I am confused Bill... I thought we were all supposed to be dead by now because of the hole in the ozone layer?
um... older people who actually REMEMBER that it used to be hotter!
Yep this fool is making the rounds, has a book I believe. I heard his say those exact words on the KTLA morning news in L.A. last week.
Kill all those not indoctrinated into the global warming cult. You know, the ones who have been here long enough to recognize BS when they hear it.
Could it be that older people remember that Nye and the other scammers have been predicting climate and population catastrophes for decades and they have all been WRONG???
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.