Month: February 2017

The New ‘Mental Health’ Standard: Can We Apply It to Neo-Malthusians? (Romm, Hansen, Ehrlich, etc.)

The New ‘Mental Health’ Standard: Can We Apply It to Neo-Malthusians? (Romm, Hansen, Ehrlich, etc.)

via Master Resourcehttps://www.masterresource.org

“‘An inability to tolerate views different’? ‘Rage reactions’? Can we apply this mental health standard to Joe Romm and James Hansen, not to mention Paul Ehrlich in his diatribes against Julian Simon?”

“This is ironic to those of us who have encountered angry neo-Malthusians trying to wake us up to the coming food famine (1960s warnings), resource famine (1970s warnings), and, most recently, climate alarmism. Does this standard apply to them as it does to all things Trump?”

I have resubscribed to the New York Times. I received a 50 percent discount, and with Trump’s upset win in November I wanted to better understand what the intellectual/media elite were thinking. (And the answer is … they still don’t get it.)

In the Letters section of February 14th edition, I encountered “Mental Health Professionals Warn About Trump.” The lead letter from 35 mental health professions read (in its entirety):

To the Editor:

Charles M. Blow (column, nytimes.com, Feb. 9) describes Donald Trump’s constant need “to grind the opposition underfoot.” As mental health professionals, we share Mr. Blow’s concern.

Silence from the country’s mental health organizations has been due to a self-imposed dictum about evaluating public figures (the American Psychiatric Association’s 1973 Goldwater Rule). But this silence has resulted in a failure to lend our expertise to worried journalists and members of Congress at this critical time. We fear that too much is at stake to be silent any longer.

Mr. Trump’s speech and actions demonstrate an inability to tolerate views different from his own, leading to rage reactions. His words and behavior suggest a profound inability to empathize. Individuals with these traits distort reality to suit their psychological state, attacking facts and those who convey them (journalists, scientists).

In a powerful leader, these attacks are likely to increase, as his personal myth of greatness appears to be confirmed. We believe that the grave emotional instability indicated by Mr. Trump’s speech and actions makes him incapable of serving safely as president.

– LANCE DODES, JOSEPH SCHACHTER  Beverly Hills, Calif.

Dr. Dodes is a retired assistant clinical professor of psychiatry at Harvard Medical School. Dr. Schachter is a former chairman of the Committee on Research Proposals, International Psychoanalytic Association. The letter was also signed by 33 other psychiatrists, psychologists and social workers.

“An inability to tolerate views different from his own”? “Rage reactions”? “A profound inability to emphasize”? How interesting!

Can we apply this standard to the bombastic Joe Romm (Center for American Progress) … the angry climate scientist James Hansen … and Paul Ehrlich regarding Julian Simon.

Consider these examples.

Joe Romm wrote this to me in an email exchange (Ken Green wrote about Romm’s wider transgressions here):

“Please desist, sociopath. The majority of Americans do not think climate science is exaggerated, but the majority of conservatives and Republicans do. That is thanks to sociopaths like you.”

– Joe Romm. Email communication to Robert Bradley, May 6, 2009.

And James Hansen has publicly complained (here and here):

“CEOs of fossil energy companies know what they are doing and are aware of long-term consequences of continued business as usual. In my opinion, these CEOs should be tried for high crimes against humanity and nature. Conviction of ExxonMobil and Peabody Coal CEOs will be no consolation if we pass on a runaway climate to our children.”

“The trains carrying coal to power plants are death trains. Coal-fired power plants are factories of death.”

And some decades ago, Paul Ehrlich insulted his rival Julian Simon in every which way. As I summarized:

For three decades, Paul Ehrlich (1932- ), a biologist at Stanford University, has been the arch foe of Julian Simon’s views of natural resource scarcity, population growth, and the future human condition. Ehrlich’s dissatisfaction with Simon carried over to the personal realm.

He likened Simon to “an imbecile,” a “flat earther,” and a “fringe character.” As late as 1991 Paul and Anne Ehrlich belittled Simon as “an economist specializing in mail-order marketing.” Only in their 1996 book did the Ehrlichs refer to Simon by his professional affiliation—Professor of Business Administration at the University of Maryland. [1]

Conclusion

It is interesting how the Progressive Left has all of a sudden become infatuated with Fake News, Alternative Facts, and other sins of Postmodernism (a Progressive notion, by the way).

This is ironic to those of us who have encountered angry neo-Malthusians in the service of ‘waking us up’ to the alleged perils of food famine (1960s), resource famine (1970s), and, most recently, climate alarmism. Does this standard apply to them as it does to all things Trump?

This appears to be just another double standard of Left Progressivism. On the other hand, the invectives against Trump may be backfiring, as suggests a recent Times piece, Are Liberals Helping Trump?. [2]

——

[1] See Simon’s summary of Ehrlich’s vendetta in “The Special Case of Paul Ehrlich,” The Ultimate Resource 2 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1996), pp. 604–609.

[2] In “Are Liberals Helping Trump?, author Sabrina Tavernise, a national correspondent for the New York Times, wrote: “‘The name calling from the left is crazy,’ said Bryce Youngquist [of] … a liberal enclave where admitting you voted for Mr. Trump is a little like saying in the 1950s that you were gay. ‘They are complaining that Trump calls people names, but they turned into some mean people’.”

The post The New ‘Mental Health’ Standard: Can We Apply It to Neo-Malthusians? (Romm, Hansen, Ehrlich, etc.) appeared first on Master Resource.

via Master Resource http://ift.tt/1o3KEE1

February 20, 2017 at 05:29PM

Wind Power Disaster Means South Australian Labor Government ‘Gone with the Wind’

Wind Power Disaster Means South Australian Labor Government ‘Gone with the Wind’

via STOP THESE THINGShttps://stopthesethings.com

*** While the power pricing and supply calamity that is South Australia is down to the subsidies awarded to wind power under the Federal government’s Large-Scale RET, the state Labor government has done plenty to create the unfolding disaster and nothing to mitigate it. It’s vapid Premier, Jay Weatherill must know that, as a wind […]

via STOP THESE THINGS http://ift.tt/2kE7k62

February 20, 2017 at 04:31PM

Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

Fresh Congressional Probe into Flawed Karl “Pausebuster” Scandal

via Watts Up With That?http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

LadyJusticeImage[1]

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

In the wake of revelations by whistleblower Dr. John Bates, Congressman Lamar Smith, Chairman of the House Committee on Science, Space and Technology, has renewed demands for access to documents and correspondence relating to the release of the flawed Karl “Pausebuster” paper.

US Congress launches a probe into climate data that duped world leaders over global warming

  • Republican Lamar Smith has announced an inquiry to acting chief of NOAA
  • He has demanded for all internal documents and communications between staff
  • It follows an investigation by the Mail on Sunday and information leaked by Dr John Bates

By David Rose for The Mail on Sunday
PUBLISHED: 13:14 +11:00, 19 February 2017 | UPDATED: 19:10 +11:00, 19 February 2017

Revelations by the Mail on Sunday about how world leaders were misled over global warming by the main source of climate data have triggered a probe by the US Congress.

Republican Lamar Smith, who chairs the influential House of Representatives Committee on Science, Space and Technology, announced the inquiry last week in a letter to Benjamin Friedman, acting chief of the organisation at the heart of the MoS disclosures, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).

He renewed demands, first made in 2015, for all internal NOAA documents and communications between staff behind a controversial scientific paper, which made a huge impact on the Paris Agreement on climate change of that year, signed by figures including David Cameron and Barack Obama.

Read more: http://ift.tt/2kMczNF

The following is the letter sent by Congressman Lamar Smith to Acting Administrator of NOAA Benjamin Freidman.

Source: http://ift.tt/2kvhl24 (h/t E&E News)

This is getting serious. NOAA defied efforts at Congressional oversight when President Obama was in charge. I doubt NOAA will enjoy the same immunity from oversight under President Trump.

You can’t prosecute a scientist for making a mistake. You can potentially prosecute a civil servant if they are grossly negligent, cut corners, and provide misleading information to the public.

via Watts Up With That? http://ift.tt/1Viafi3

February 20, 2017 at 02:48PM

Bill Nye, Fake Facts & the New York Times

Bill Nye, Fake Facts & the New York Times

via Big Picture News, Informed Analysishttps://nofrakkingconsensus.com

Bill Nye, Fake Facts & the New York Times

I’m aware of two occasions in which Bill Nye has misled the public. But the New York Times says he’s saving the rest of us from misinformation.

bill_nye_saves_the_world___netflix

Eleven days ago, the New York Times ran a story headlined: “In an Age of Alternative Facts, Bill Nye’s New Show Brings Real Ones.” How charmingly naive. If you’re in a rush, and want to know about Nye’s misleading video as well as his misleading article in the very same New York Times, scroll down to the navy-coloured text below. But the longer story is entertaining.

The notion that some people are a source of real facts, while others are a source of fake/alternative facts, is currently being pushed hard by the mainstream media. Journalists have decided that a major part of their job is to tell the rest of us who to believe.

Their message isn’t that skepticism is always necessary, and that even smart people are often wrong. Rather, this is an attempt to divide the world into two categories – reliable individuals anointed by media outlets such as the Times and everyone else.

The article says Nye is about to “launch a fact-filled show into a fact-challenged world.” The 13-episode Netflix series, set for release in April, is humorously titled Bill Nye Saves the World. The Times quotes a Netflix statement that declares:

Each episode will tackle a topic from a scientific point of view, dispelling myths, and refuting antiscientific claims that may be espoused by politicians, religious leaders or titans of industry.

Although published in the Times’ science section, the article is a celebrity puff piece. For example, reporter Jacey Fortin uncritically presents Nye’s vapid remarks about the climate debate:

“We in the climate science community didn’t politicize it. Other people did. People who want to preserve the fossil fuel industries, the extraction industries.”

Nye is a media personality and an engineer – not a climate scientist. So what’s this talk about “We in the climate science community”? That’s strike one.

Strike two is that climate activism is political activism. When Al Gore – a career politician – is your most prominent spokesperson, blaming the other side for politicizing the climate debate requires chutzpah.

Strike three is Nye’s unhelpful insinuation that fossil fuel companies are villains. All energy sources have limitations and shortcoming. At this point in history, fossil fuels make survival possible, and render human lives meaningful and productive. Fossil fuels transport us to work and to school. They get Nye from his primary residence in Los Angeles to his apartment in New York City. Disparaging people who harvest that energy on our behalf is counter-productive and ill-mannered.

But the media skew is actually much worse. Let’s start with the idea that no one is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. When some people make mistakes they are pounced on, denounced, judged harshly, and permanently written off by journalists as those-with-evil-motives-who-can-never-be-trusted. Yet when the anointed commit similar errors, these errors aren’t noticed, reported, or remembered.

In other words, the press plays favourites. It employs flagrant double-standards, misleading the public via massive sins of omission. Which means that a great deal of what’s now being disseminated by respectable news organizations is actually soft propaganda. The journalists involved aren’t consciously producing propaganda. Instead, they’ve succumbed to groupthink. The worldview that dominates their media bubble has rendered them oblivious to any other reality.

I’ve conducted almost no research, yet I’m aware of two occasions in which Bill Nye has misled the public. You won’t read about that in the Times, however. There he’s portrayed as a superhero who, armed with ‘real facts,’ is saving the rest of us from heinous misinformation.

Bill Nye misleads the public – Exhibit #1 
In 2011, Anthony Watts went to great lengths to replicate an experiment presented in a 5-minute video called Climate 101. Produced by the Climate Reality Project, which was founded by Al Gore, viewers were told they themselves could conduct this experiment – which allegedly demonstrates the greenhouse gas theory.

Watts argues persuasively that, rather than being a “true record of an experiment,” what appears on screen is fake. In his words, it is “a complete fabrication” – a “staged production from start to finish.” More than six years ago, Watts wrote on his blog:

If Mr. Gore’s team actually performed the experiment and has credible video documenting the success of his simple “high school physics” exercise, I suggest that in the interest of clarity, now is the time to make it available.

Watts is still waiting.

What does this have to do with Bill Nye, the Science Guy? He is the narrator of that video – a video in which fake footage is presented as real. Nye’s reputation as a scientific straight shooter is forever linked to it. (Watch it here, then read Watts’ detailed critique here. Posted in more than one place on YouTube, it has been viewed over half a million times.)

Bill Nye misleads the public – Exhibit #2 
In 1999, Nye wrote an article about interactive science museums. It was published in the New York Times, under the headline “The Marks of a Good Exhibit? Few Words, Flying Sparks.” In that article, Nye made a ‘research shows’ statement that wasn’t true. 

Nye asserted that science museums are “vital to our future.” His argument consisted of three main ideas:

  1. Research shows that half of what we know about science is learned outside the classroom.
  2. The more we know about science, the more informed we are as voters.
  3. Science museums = better informed voters = a better society.

But when journalist Daniel Greenberg contacted him by telephone the next day, Nye couldn’t cite any research in support of these ideas. Nye urged the journalist to get in touch with a third party at the National Science Foundation. But that individual wasn’t aware of any research, either.

The relevant page in Greenberg’s book may be seen online here. Here’s a screenshot:

The notion that a scientifically literate populace produces a better society sounds like common sense. But Greenberg’s book, Science, Money, and Politics points out that even though the scientific community frequently makes such claims, there’s no evidence that this is the case.  

Rather than sticking to hard facts, Nye misled the public. Like other people, he sometimes exaggerates, gets things wrong, or misremembers. At least once he has declared that ‘research shows’ when no such research actually existed. Yet the Times tells us he’s a wondrous antidote to the ‘alternative facts’ and ‘fake news’ swirling around the Donald Trump administration.

The obvious question is: Why has Nye’s fake video and fake scientific research not made it onto the media’s radar? Because, dear reader, Nye is fashionable and well-connected and moves in the right circles. He therefore receives nothing other than non-stop positive press from one of the world’s most respected media brands.

In addition to this month’s article, in 2013 the Times dubbed Nye a Champion for Science. In 2015, it told us about his living quarters, in a piece titled “Where the Science Guy Loosens His Tie.” Last year, we got to read about “How Bill Nye, the Science Guy, Spends His Sundays.”

Fact-checking? Accountability for gaffes and missteps? The in-crowd gets judged by entirely different standards.

.

via Big Picture News, Informed Analysis http://ift.tt/2lp20C6

February 20, 2017 at 11:15AM