Posted on 10/29/2020 7:13:36 AM PDT by SJackson
Whether the issue is “Climate Change” or ways of dealing with COVID-19 the Radical Left ridicules anyone who would dare to question their positions on critical issues. They accuse those who question them or their claims of not believing in science.
Consider the Yahoo News report that AOL posted on October 26, 2020, Bill Gates slams Trump's COVID-19 adviser as 'pseudo-expert' who's 'off-the-rails' which began with this excerpt:
In a new interview, billionaire philanthropist Bill Gates sharply criticized the Trump administration for muzzling experts at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) while instead listening to White House COVID-19 adviser Dr. Scott Atlas, whom Gates calls a “pseudo-expert” who’s “off-the-rails.”
Atlas, a member of the administration’s coronavirus task force who formerly appeared as a commentator for Fox News, reportedly opposes an expansion of COVID testing and earlier this month posted a tweet falsely downplaying the effectiveness of masks. Twitter later removed the post from Atlas, a Stanford University professor with a medical degree from the University of Chicago School of Medicine.
“We now have a pseudo-expert advising the president,” Gates, the former Microsoft (MSFT) CEO and a leading backer of global public health initiatives, told Yahoo Finance Editor-in-Chief Andy Serwer in an interview that aired on Monday as part of the the news organization’s All Markets Summit.
After the interview, taped on Oct. 15, Gates confirmed that he had made the comments in reference to Atlas, who has opposed lockdowns and co-authored an op-ed in The Hill called “The COVID-19 shutdowns will cost Americans millions of years of lives.”
This article is important for a number of reasons. First of all, Gates demonstrated colossal chutzpah to insult a medical doctor who graduated from a highly respected medical school and serves as a professor at Stanford University, while Gates, himself, never attended any medical school.
In fact, Gates has no degree of any kind!
What then, could possibly qualify Gates to pass judgement on the credibility of a medical doctor especially one with the clear credentials of Dr. Scott Atlas even as he castigated President Trump for challenging the contradictory and morphing advice of Dr. Fauci.
The AOL/Yahoo article stated that Twitter had removed what they claimed was a tweet posted by Dr. Atlas that they claim falsely downplayed the effectiveness of masks.
It is more than a bit disturbing that Twitter censored Dr. Atlas and, in so doing, prevented the general public from benefitting from his perspectives. This should alarm everyone.
About 20 years ago I was diagnosed with an aggressive form of prostate cancer. The surgeon who examined me and told me of my situation was the chief of urology at a major New York Hospital and chaired the department of urology at a major medical school.
However, while he told me that he believed that he could save my life, he urged me to seek out at least one additional opinion so that I would be confident that I was making the proper decision.
I did seek out that second opinion and my medical insurance policy covered that second opinion, because this notion of seeking additional opinions is considered the standard way for people to make certain that they are making proper life and death decisions.
Needless to say, my surgeon saved my life- this a good thing because I have not aggravated my quota yet!
Where science and the Radical Left are concerned, however, not blindly following what their anointed experts proclaim, is an act of heresy.
This flies in the face of commonsense and threatens the First Amendment and all of our freedoms.
In doing a bit of research I found a similar situation that existed in a different country many years ago.
That country was Germany as the Third Reich began taking control of Germany and its population, Jews came under vicious attack. No less a scientist that Albert Einstein was attacked for his work. Scientific America on February 13, 2015 published an important article about the lunacy that transpired at that time, How 2 Pro-Nazi Nobelists Attacked Einstein’s "Jewish Science" [Excerpt].
The article discussed the mass book burnings carried out on college campuses, not unlike the way that Antifa operates today. Books authored by Albert Einstein were incinerated. Here is an important paragraph from this article:
It would be absurd, of course, to suppose that most of the book-burners had given these questions a moment’s thought. The simple fact was that Einstein was a prominent Jew, and his thoughts therefore fit for the bonfire. But Einstein’s theory was attacked on racial grounds. This assault came not by asinine ideologues in the party whose knowledge of science extended no further than a belief in fairy tales about “cosmic ice,” nor from individuals on the scientific fringe seeking official approval and support. It was orchestrated by two Nobel laureates in physics, who devised a full-blown thesis (it can’t be dignified by calling it a theory) on how stereotypical racial features are exhibited in scientific thinking. They were Philipp Lenard and Johannes Stark, and they wanted to become the new Führers of German physics.
Einstein’s Theories of Relativity and his concept of Space-Time were mocked and ridiculed by two Nazi Nobel laureates.
Of course nearly all of Einstein’s brilliant theories have been validated in recent years by scientists and physicists who now have the technological tools to conduct appropriate experiments.
Understandably fearing for his life, Einstein fled Nazi Germany and came to America where, ironically, he helped America defeat Fascism in Germany and Japan and, in so doing, safeguarded freedom for people across the globe.
Today the Radical Left demands obedience to theories about climate change that support their demands for the “New Green Deal” even as some scientists question the validity of the notion that human actions have climatological consequences that must be stopped at all costs.
They seek nothing short of a fundamental transformation in the way that we live and work and these demands can only be justified by claiming that catastrophic climate change can only be averted if we adopt draconian changes.
Science has always been about challenges beliefs and devising experiments to seek the truth.
To cite an interesting example of how highly respected scientists may come to diametrically opposed conclusions consider a pair of articles that ran on the same website (Space.com) on two consecutive days.
On October 19, 2020, that website posted, What’s Happening with Betelgeuse? Astronomers Propose a Specialized Telescope to Watch the Star Every Night.
The very next day, October 20, the website published, Wow, Betelgeuse Might Be 25% Closer than Previously Believed.
The physicists who wrote the first article postulated that because Betelgeuse is so huge and pulsating, it is likely to explode within our lifetimes. They estimated that that star is 700 light-years from earth. This is why they proposed the construction of a special telescope to keep an astronomical eye on that star.
However, if the physicists who published the second article are right, Betelgeuse is 548 light years away. This would mean that the star is not nearly as large or bright as the other physicists believe. This would mean that Betelgeuse is not likely to become a super nova any time soon- at least not for another 100,000 years by their estimates.
This may not seem important to us on our beleaguered planet, but the lessons to be learned is very important.
Experts can and do disagree. The process of questioning is behind all of our achievements. Scientists who serve a political agenda are the scientists who must not be trusted.
Science is supposed to be the tireless search for universal truths and must be unencumbered by political agendas.
Scientists who yield to the political elite betray their professions and should be ignored as the science-fascists that they are.
Voltaire sagely observed that you could determine the intelligence of a person by considering the questions that they ask, the same questions that today will earn you scorn and ridicule by the Radical Left.
These “leftist scientists” must not know much about science or they would not be treating glabal warming as fact.
Global warming is a theory only.
It is NOT proven fact.
For centuries, bloodletting was the go-to treatment for disease, according to the overwhelming consensus of medical experts.
Scientists will report whatever the ones giving them big grants wants them to report. Academia is totally politicized.
Remind me again, what medical school did Dr. Bill Gates go to?
The Politicization of Science has been underway for decades.
Personally, I think it began when atheists and socialists hijacked Darwin’s theory of evolution and created “Darwinism,” which jumped from scientific theory to religious theory.
The “scientific” atheists who attack faith and people of faith rely on the old line, “The burden of proof is on them,” meaning that we have to use science to prove God’s existence.
Fine. Two can play that game.
Show me the repeated, conclusive, irrefutable, peer-tested and proven scientific experiments that establish once and for all that God does not exist.
You can’t.
Because “faith” by definition means belief without irrefutable proof.
The arguments for or against God and faith belong not in the hard sciences, but in the soft sciences, the humanities (philosophy, art, literature, psychology, anthropology, etc.).
Not even Darwin was a “Darwinist.” By the end of his career he was admitting that it was unlikely that there was a single point of origin for all life forms and he could not account for a multiplicity. Intelligent Design addresses that issue quite well.
“Darwinism” to me was the initial battle to politicize science. And like all hijacking of what is good and noble, it was done so by Socialists to further their Leftist agenda.
the left abandoned real science a long time ago. They use “science” when it fits their political agenda.
As far as global worming, the best science I see is from prof Happer (Princeton). Heavy quantum physics, if you bother to see. Basically the Co2 is saturated for global warming and you need a lot of Co2 to get little warming. (Arrhenius effect) There a a lot more of great science from sceptics. The alarmists are just building models and claim terrible tendencies. More like predicting stock market from trends than real science!
For the Left, scientists are billed as ‘High priests” for the purpose of determining political guidance on a range of issues. Only trouble is, their political masters are feeding them the “science” that conforms to their political agenda. Very similar to a radical religious sect leader interpreting scripture for his followers. Come on, people, don’t listen to the lies of these creeps. They just want to control you!!!!!
If the science is not settled, meaning everyone is in agreement, then we won’t be lemmings.
If a person follows the scientific method, they will quickly see that the hypothesis of global warming is not only unproven, it is fraught with lots of problems.
The main problem for the hypothesis is that the sun is the heat source for our solar system. The energy it imparts on our planet and others in our solar system is constantly changing due to energy output fluctuations of the sun and time and distance from the sun as planets travel.
In other words, even if all other variables were constant in the equation (they are not, but let us pretend), we would still have temperature variability! Our climate is not a thermostat that we can set on 70 degrees because the energy of the sun continually fluctuates as does our distance from the sun.
These two factors are the most important, yet they are ignored by climate change alarmist who treat the sun and our orbit as a constant.
Of course it is much more complex because (like everything in nature) our planet has responses to maintain homeostasis or balance in the system. Their hypothesis fails here also because they focus primarily on greenhouse gases of which mankind only produces a small amount in comparison to nature. Nature’s ability to regulate our climate is massive compared to ours, but that is a much longer answer.
They practice junk science.
There were excellent scientific arguments against Copernicus and Galileo too. Overwhelming scientific consensus against Galileo. The arguments were actually really good based on the science then. I read one article in The sky and the telescope listing those arguments. They really were irrefutable!
A quick trip to Room 101 is in store for any non-conformists.
It’s actually Lysenkoism.
If you've known for the past 20 years that the north pole will be ice free in 5 years, and still believe you were correct all along...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If people are born automatically attracted to males or females (born straight or gay) but aren't born male of female themselves (you choose your gender after birth)...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If there's no way there's a Supreme Being who created us, but a simple man named George W. Bush created Hurricane Katrina and steered it toward minorities in New Orleans...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If global warming causes blizzards...you might be a Democrat. LOL
If former port cities like Ephesus (the Greek town of Paul's letter to the Ephesians) are now inland because of the Little Ice Age from centuries ago, but it's man's fault if the ocean levels revert to where they used to be...you might be a Democrat. LOL
There was a professor at Oregon State U that collected data that was contrary to the global warming hypothesis. He presented it and I believe he was forced into retirement or asked to leave. I can’t remember which, but he was as essentially SILENCED. This was was almost 20 years ago.So any data that does not support the theory was squelched and doctored data replaced it. I think this truly evil. Someone obviously planned on making money off of this global warming clown show and worse yet, they planned to use it to control Americans.
They have squelched science for years on a whole host of issues, but any issues that go against the Marxist desires of the environmental movement are typically the worst.
The underpinning of modern environmentalism is really a Marxist dictatorship designed to control economic activity and freedom. A lot of people have made a lot of money from it and they will if they ever achieve their false “utopia.”
The rise from 280 ppm to 415 ppm is mostly manmade. There would have been a rise from 280 to as much as 300 with the natural warming from the grand solar maximum and ongoing decrease in the distance from the sun (I think that's about a 4 or 5000 year cycle).
Yes, you are correct that the models treat the distance from the sun and solar radiation as a constant. But they don't matter a lot in the short run otherwise there would be an 11 year fluctuation in temperature and there isn't. What does matter is that the solar grand maximum (2nd half of the 20th century) and the ongoing decrease in the distance from the sun are responsbile for a lot of global warming. Thus any models that assume that's all due to the manmade rise in CO2 are overweighting CO2.
He also has the “scientific” experience of promoting a new polio vaccine to eradicate polio, and introducing vaccine-derived poliovirus type 2, which will probably require it’s own vaccine. Reminiscent of the experiments with corona virus’ in Wuan.
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.