Posted on 11/18/2020 3:05:42 PM PST by lasereye
If you were lucky enough to attend America’s premier academic institution, Harvard University, you would receive most days, as I do, the Harvard Gazette. The Gazette generally cloaks its pieces in the mantle of “news”; but really its principal function is to find ways for us Harvard people to congratulate ourselves on how brilliant we are, while at the same time heaping scorn and derision on the the ignorant deplorables who are always getting in the way of our plans to perfect the world.
You only need to read a few of these things before you start to realize that what might seem like the very “smartest” people — the ones with the fanciest degrees and the fanciest professorships at the fanciest universities — are actually painfully stupid.
Anyway, today’s Harvard Gazette arrives with some joyful news: Science is back! After four dreadful years of the “anti-science” Trump, we are now going to see, with Biden, the restoration of “science” to its rightful place in the formulation of public policy. This news is right there in the lead story, headline and sub-headline: “Is science back? Harvard’s Holdren says ‘yes’/Ex-Obama adviser says, unlike Trump, Biden and Harris will embrace factual analysis.” From the first paragraph:
[T]he incoming Biden-Harris administration has moved quickly to reinstall science as a foundation for government policy after four years of a president who disdained accepted scientific wisdom on subjects from wildfires to hurricane tracks, climate change to COVID-19.
The Gazette has learned that “science is back” by their usual method, which is by interviewing the leading Harvard professor on the subject. In this case that is John Holdren. Do you remember him? Holdren’s current title is “Teresa and John Heinz Professor of Environmental Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School and professor of environmental science and policy in the Department of Earth and Planetary Sciences.”
But before that he was “[A]ssistant to the [P]resident for science and technology and director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” a position in which he served for the entire eight years of the Obama presidency. You may remember that Holdren was confirmed unanimously by the Senate in March 2009, after minimal scrutiny of his background.
So give us an example, John, of how a Biden administration will prove to be more “pro-science” than that deplorable Trump:
GAZETTE: What is an example of a classic, successful government policy backed by good science? . . . .
HOLDREN: I would point to the Paris Agreement, which was an immense step forward in which 195 countries all across the world committed to take constructive steps toward reducing their climate-altering emissions going forward. . . .
Now, as anyone who has read the Paris Agreement knows, the entire developing world — home to about 90% of the world’s people — made no commitments whatsoever in that document, nor did they even agree to any non-binding goals, toward “reducing their climate-altering emissions going forward.” Emissions from the developing world are rapidly increasing, and will continue to do so, Paris Agreement or no Paris Agreement, thus rendering any U.S. efforts to limit emissions completely futile. Holdren is either completely ignorant on this subject, or he is intentionally trying to mislead the readership. Or it could be some of both. You be the judge.
And by the way, might Holdren have some conflict of interest here that may be relevant? None is disclosed as such in the article. But you might happen to recognize that the funder of Holdren’s Harvard professorship, Teresa Heinz, is the wife of John Kerry. Kerry, of course, is the former Secretary of State who was in charge of negotiating the Paris Agreement, and who more recently co-chaired the panel that drafted the Biden energy program, and who undoubtedly is expecting some big position in an incoming Biden administration. But don’t worry, conflicts only apply to Republicans, so there is no need to mention any of this.
Anyway, if you think that John Holdren might be an appropriate person to weigh in on issues of the role of “science” in public policy, you may want to consider some of the man’s previous writings on the subject.
For example, in 1977 Holdren co-authored with Paul and Anne Ehrlich a textbook titled “Ecoscience.” We know that “Ecoscience” was about “science,” because it’s right there in the title; therefore we can be secure in understanding that this is a good place to look for Holdren’s views as to what using “science as a foundation for public policy” will entail. A principal theme of the book is that overpopulation is about to engulf the world (“science” has shown it!) and therefore governments are justified, and indeed required, to take the most extreme possible measures to prevent the impending disaster. In 2009, shortly after Holdren’s confirmation as Obama’s “science” advisor, a website called Zombietime collected a top-ten list of quotations from “Ecoscience.” Here are a few of my favorites:
Holdren is a “doom peddler” who latches onto the nightmare-scenario-du-jour — overpopulation, nuclear holocaust, global cooling, global warming (all of which he’s trumpeted at various points in his career) — and then wildly exaggerates it in order to scare the public into adopting his politicized “solutions.”
Or, to put it another way, “science is back”! De-develop the United States? Forced population control? A “planetary regime” to control all “resources”? The “science” requires it! All the “smart” people from Harvard know that. You can understand why Holdren is excited about a Biden presidency. Are you?
Putting aside the mid-Obama NHC/WMO 'decision' to 'immediately name lesser storms' >70mph, the idea of 'tracks' decided by anything other than opposing centers of pressure is amusing, at best, as much so as the 'decision' to 'immediately name lesser storms'.
I learned a long time ago that people are mostly stupid or greedy, and sometimes they try to kill you. Best to not turn your back on them.
Some of the biggest dopes I knew were PHD’s
God knows us too well; thankfully, He still loves us.
Oh heck yeah; great quote!!!
Sowell!!!
That has been my issue with pollsters who always have huge “margins of error” in favor of Democrats.
They should be on street corners begging for food!
Compare any of the whose who to Sidney Powell and the conclusion is obvious.
It’s amazing how it’s all lining up just like the Bible said it would.
“I would rather be governed by the first 2,000 people in the Boston telephone directory than by the 2,000 people on the faculty of Harvard University.” William F. Buckley, Jr.
[Some of the biggest dopes I knew were PHD’s]
I can testify that one wrote a book that is being used to deceive people in churches. And he obviously has no clue how wrong he is with his partial-preterism. Gonna be surprised when he finds out the coming (anti) “messiah” isn’t really THE Messiah.
But then, he may never figure that out.
“men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in themselves that recompence of their error which was meet”
AIDS?
I went through a period of “intellectual superiority” in my 20s as all of my friends were blue collar and I had gone to college.
I was superior in intellect and ability!! Poor peasants!!
Until I realized that most of these guys could build a house from scratch given the resources needed.
They fixed everything on their own, put things together that I couldn’t even start, were great mechanically while I almost filled my oil container with anti freeze.
They also made a fortune in the government sector is cops and firemen doing overtime. One managed a liquor warehouse and made well over 100k.
at 52, they are all married with children and have beautiful homes and are already retired AND making good money working part time.
So now, at 52, they spend their evenings with their families in their beautiful homes, financially comfortable while I’m half broke, single and sitting here typing on FR while eating stale potato chips :)
Joining the FR board during the day is the highlight of my day.
I don’t know if that’s a good thing...or not....
Dunno - it certainly isn’t a healthy lifestyle. Simply from a cleanliness aspect.
That much is obvious and for certain.
Dunno - it certainly isn’t a healthy lifestyle. Simply from a cleanliness aspect.
That much is obvious and for certain.
Start doing drugs, or get back to doing drugs again. :)
glad to send you some Cheetos if you need...
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.
