Oh My, Bill Nye

The intrusion of politics into science, as Galileo discovered, is regrettable and dangerous but, it’s when ideas like the following are proposed by, perhaps the most recognizable scientist in America to people under sixty, that the real danger of the politico-scientific community to America’s system of rational economic, scientific and artistic capitalism is revealed.

 Columnist Todd Starnes reports: “These days Dr. William Nye, better known to millions as TV’s Bill Nye, the Science Guy, hosts a series on Netflix – Bill Nye Saves the World. The other day – he pondered this question – should [America’s] people be penalized for having extra kids. Travis Rieder, a bioethicist at Johns Hopkins University, told Mr. Nye it was a good idea. “I do think that we should at least consider it,” he said. “Well, ‘at least consider it’ is like ‘do it,’” Nye replied.

 Their theory is that big American families are hurting the environment [more “global warming” insanity]. “One of the things that we could do that’s kind of (at) least policy-ish is we could encourage our culture and our norms to change, right?” Rieder said.

 Starnes opines: “It’s one of the most repulsive things I’ve heard in a long time – downright despicable – evil scientist stuff. Just who gets to decide how many children is too many? And who determines which child is the extra child? Also …  what would Mr. Nye consider to be an appropriate punishment? Additional taxes? Post-Birth abortions? Is it possible that families like the Brady Bunch and the Walton’s could one day be outlawed?”

 “It’s frightening to imagine a nation where parents are punished for having what the left considers too many babies. I thought liberals wanted the government out of our bedrooms – but now they want to deputize government agents to police American baby-making. Perhaps Netflix should consider producing a new television program – Bill Nye the Eugenics Guy.” [Margaret Sanger would be so proud. No wonder the PLDC is so high on legal abortions.]

 But wait, it gets worse. Bill Nye is actually on to something. Overpopulation is the biggest threat to humanity. The future numbers are staggering. The world’s population today is about 7.5 billion people. If world fertility remains constant – and why wouldn’t it in a world with The Bachelor and The Bachelorette garnering high TV ratings that leads to world syndication –the world’s population will reach 30 billion people in about 100 years. That’s a four-fold increase – doubling once, then doubling again!

 But, the United States is a minor player in world population calculations. There are almost 1.5 billion Chinese; about 1.3 Indians and a billion Africans. There are only one-third of a billion Americans – that’s 4% of the total. Even if America became home to a billion people – imagine that for a minute – we would actually be only 3+% of the 30 billion total!

 Why then would Bill Nye suggest that America needs to reduce our fertility rate. Because his is not a scientific judgement – it is a political one – one that favors big government control of every facet of our lives.

 The real scientist would be led by the available evidence to the real source of the problem – the developing world, where tribal culture and tradition drive fertility rates – not Western Civilization where fertility rates have been declining for generations. Nye, like so many of the world’s scientists, has begun his inquiry with an answer – his answer, not a question. His answer is that the needs and wants of human beings are the most significant source of global warming so, he must find evidence that supports that answer.

 According to this rationale, since the United States has the world’s largest economy, it must surely be the largest source of pollution. If there are fewer Americans, our contribution to global warming will be less. Right? Are there any scientific facts to back that up? No! In fact, America has reduced its pollution emissions by more than 70% since 1970. The three most harmful emissions have been reduced from 255 tons per year to less than 120 tons – 54% while our population has grown by over 56%. So obviously, a growing American population does not equate to more pollution.

 Additionally, the human contribution to pollution – in the form of CO2 – is about 4 billion tons per year while industry contributes more than 35 billion tons. Clearly, reducing industrial pollution is the key, not reducing American families.

 China emits almost twice the amount of greenhouse gases as the US, which it surpassed in 2006 as the world’s top contributor to atmospheric carbon dioxide. Today, that country accounts for approximately 25 percent of all global CO2 emissions. The United States government estimates project that, barring major reform, China will double its emissions by 2040 to half of the world’s emissions, due to its heavy reliance on fossil fuels for steel production and electricity.

 And, China has had a “one-child-per-family” policy in place for decades! Oh my, Bill Nye.

 During the period from 1970 forward, the earth’s temperature has risen about 0.3°F per decade. During the previous 100 years, the average was about 0.2°F per decade. So, as America’s contribution to global warming, as measured by the components of air pollution, has decreased dramatically, the global warming rate has actually increased.

 The scientific conclusion should be that America’s contribution to global warming is not very significant since cutting our pollution numbers in half surely has not adversely effected the earth’s temperature change. Apparently, Bill Nye doesn’t want to be bothered by real facts – like the truth – nor apparently, is he able to understand the concept of correlation. Just sayin’.  

 Of course, the benighted sachems of science will strike out like predators, from their ivy-covered perches, at any criticism of their methods, findings or new “truths”. Their “how dare you” attitude is complemented by glib sarcasm and belittling of any “commoner” who has the gall to challenge them.

 But, as we have seen above, their claim to the truths about our world has been tarnished by the oldest of human motives – greed, jealousy and lust – for fame (at the expense of the more famous – classic jealousy). An example:

 Malcolm Gladwell is the author of enormously successful and noteworthy bestsellers The Tipping Point, Blink and Outliers. His muchly credentialed critics in academia have described him as prone to over-simplification. The New Republic called the final chapter of Outliers, “impervious to all forms of critical thinking” and said Gladwell believes “a perfect anecdote proves a fatuous rule.” Gladwell has also been criticized for his emphasis on anecdotal evidence over research to support his conclusions. 

 [I cannot resist the question: Wouldn’t anecdotal evidence be preferable to peer reviewed lies?]

 Maureen Tkacik and Steven Pinker have challenged the integrity of Gladwell’s approach. Even while praising Gladwell’s writing style and content, Pinker summed up Gladwell as “a minor genius who unwittingly demonstrates the hazards of statistical reasoning,” while accusing him of “cherry-picked anecdotes, post-hoc sophistry and false dichotomies” in his book Outliers. 

 Referencing a Gladwell reporting mistake in which Gladwell refers to “eigenvalue” as “Igon Value”, Pinker criticizes his lack of expertise: “I will call this the Igon Value Problem: when a writer’s education on a topic consists in interviewing an expert, he is apt to offer generalizations that are banal, obtuse or flat wrong.” [Or, perhaps it’s an “autocorrect” problem and don’t get me started on Einstein’s spelling prowess.] 

 A writer in The Independent accused Gladwell of posing “obvious” insights.

The Register has accused Gladwell of making arguments by weak analogy and commented Gladwell has an “aversion for fact”, adding “Gladwell has made a career out of handing simple, vacuous truths to people and dressing them up with flowery language and an impressionistic take on the scientific method.” In that regard, The New Republic has called him “America’s Best-Paid Fairy-Tale Writer.” His approach was satirized by the online site “The Malcolm Gladwell Book Generator“.

 Such humor. My sides are splitting. In fact, these criticisms reveal a simple truth. Gladwell is a writer – something these self-described experts are not. They may be able to analyze statistical results of experiments in an unbiased manner – on occasion – but they have a difficult time conveying any useable information to any audience outside of their selected peers. Their reward is a good comment from a colleague that might help them get their next – taxpayer provided – grant.

 They could use the grant money to prove Gladwell wrong but, the shrillness of their barbs leads me to believe they might not be able to and, even if they could, they could not get anyone to read about it.

 In Gladwell, they see someone who has, on his own initiative, produced useful pieces of work – ones that inspire people to think for themselves – not be told what to think – the goal of these scientists’ most avid and vapid supporters – the PLDC. On top of that, he has gotten rich in the process – probably one of the “Top 1%”.

 I personally have tried to emulate Gladwell to some degree in this work in order to, hopefully, engage and embolden the People in the most critical debate in the history of our Republic.

 Now back to the general discussion about truth in the public square [a term popularized by Pastor and author Richard John Neuhaus in 1984].

 Democrat President Obama swept into office in 2009 with the promise to the voters to make his administration the most transparent and ethical in history:

  “… to close the revolving door that let’s lobbyists come into government freely and use their time in public service as a way to promote their own interests over the interests of the American people.”

 Within days of his inauguration, he had violated his promise. USA Today reported that within the first week of his inauguration, President Obama had several dozen Democrat propaganda flaks to a meeting at the White House with senior administration officials, who would be instructed by the Administration to spin his policies to the compliant main-stream media.

 “Among them were six registered lobbyists or paid consultants who would return again and again to the White House with paying clients to horse-trade their influence with the willing media for laws and regulations favorable to their clients’ profit margins. By the summer of 2015, these six had brought more than 30 different clients for more than 55 meetings inside the White House with senior administration officials since the January 2009 meeting.

 Less than two months into his first term, the White House invited a group of Democrat strategists, including three registered lobbyists, to the West Wing for a meeting with the President’s guru David Axelrod to coordinate support for Obamacare. In print, online and on television, they defended everything from tax increases to his inaction against rising radical Islamic terrorism. There were more than sixteen of these types of White House meetings and countless telephone conferences with the same group.

 According to USA Today (hardly a conservative bastion), “…there is a quid pro quo of the White House getting a favor from the paid lobbyist (acting as a secret mouthpiece for the President’s policies) and then the paid lobbyist actually lobbying the White House on behalf of a client.”

 In return for flacking for the President, such lobbyist clients as:

 General Electric got tax breaks worth billions of dollars in 2012, paying their White House lobbyist $560,000.

Another, lobbying for a Kansas State University proposal for a biological research facility associated with homeland security, was paid $500,000 and ground was broken in May 2015.

DISH Network wanted more wireless airwave frequencies and paid their White House lobbyist more than $240,000 and got the additional frequencies it paid for.

An alliance of non-profit colleges wanted to weaken a Department of Education regulation that would cost the schools billions of dollars in federal financial aid. They paid their White House lobbyist $500,000 to escort them to a White House meeting with the result that they got their weaker regulation.

One final example had an Alaskan tribal corporation pushing for more oil drilling in Alaska. Despite the Obama administration’s loathing for oil drilling anywhere, after lobbying by one of the “elect” (politically protected groups), Obama ordered the Interior Department to expand drilling on the tribal lands.

There are many other examples.

 Amazingly, one participant in these meetings, who is not a lobbyist was concerned by the obvious practice, said he thought it crossed the ethical line.”

 President Obama’s favorite justification for his executive action in this and other areas was that “Congress failed to act.” No, Mr. President, Congress does not fail to act, it chooses not to act. There is a difference. A determination not to act is, by itself, a deliberate act. This is how the Framers constructed our system of government. Congress considers and debates a great many bills. Not all of them pass. This is not “failure” in the conventional, traditional, accepted use of the word, but decision by declination. It constitutes a prudent and calculated process. By the way, this is not an alternative fact, merely an intelligent and logical way to look at things, rather than an ignorant and emotional way.

 But, the PLDC beat goes on and the truth continues to suffer. Perhaps the most important issue of the post-Cold War era is the proliferation of nuclear weapons to unstable governments, especially those controlled by radical Islam, specifically Iran and its “axis-of-evil” co-conspirator, North Korea. Consider:

 “In a stunningly blunt interview, top Obama adviser Ben Rhodes asserted that the administration’s foreign policy team built an “echo chamber” of experts to help sell the controversial Iran nuclear arms deal. Deputy National Security Adviser Ben Rhodes made the comments as part of an extensive profile in The New York Times Magazine in the Spring of 2016. The article detailed how Rhodes’ “war room” worked to influence [read: lie to] Capitol Hill lawmakers and reporters as the details of the Iranian nuclear deal were being hammered out in negotiations.

 “We created an echo chamber,” Rhodes said, when asked about [alleged] “arms-control experts [scientists]” who appeared at Washington think tanks and were then used as sources for hundreds of reporters – whom the article described as “clueless” [oddly, probably a true statement amid all of the lies]. Of those experts, Rhodes said: “They were saying things that validated what we had given them to say.”

 According to the article, Rhodes used groups like The Iran Project to help promote the nuclear deal, but also pushed back on the notion that they misled anybody. When asked about Rhodes’ comments, White House Press Secretary Josh Earnest said the administration is proud of the “strong” and “principled” case made for the international agreement with Iran.

 The “echo chamber” remark was one of several revealing moments in the article. According to the piece, Rhodes also tried in January 2016 to keep Iran’s capture of American sailors out of the news until after President Obama’s State of the Union address. “They can’t keep a secret for two hours,” Rhodes was quoted saying – the news ended up breaking before the President’s address that night.

 Asked about those comments, Earnest told reporters “it is easier to resolve situations like this when they aren’t subject to intense media scrutiny. … I’m sure that was a factor in this situation.” He said anybody also would have realized “it was not going to stay secret for long, and that that certainly was true in this instance.”

 Rhodes, meanwhile, took a shot in the article at the modern media landscape, lamenting the closure of many newspapers’ foreign bureaus and the level of experience of many political reporters. “Most of the outlets are reporting on world events from Washington. The average reporter we talk to is 27 years old, and their only reporting experience consists of being around political campaigns. That’s a sea change. They literally know nothing,” he said.”

 What a startling admission by a PLDC flack, who brags about the ability to rely on the press to carry out the persistent and pervasive attack on the truth that is the hallmark of the cabal.

 Recall my mention of Shakespeare above, as playing an important part of the human continuum in Western Civilization. His character Polonius in Hamlet says; “This above all, to thine own self be true, and it must follow as the night the day. Thou canst not then be false to any man.” We can now add scientists to the cabal’s membership list – joining politicians, the courts, the press, the media, the unions, academia and the arts & entertainment industry. What a rogue’s gallery that is!

The progressive/liberal/Democrat cabal (PLDC) attack on truth (what is true) demonstrates that it is far out of the mainstream of Western Culture – our culture – and is damaging, demoralizing and destabilizing the very civilization itself. But, the most profound consequence of all will be to all of the associated members of the cabal if their dreams are realized – their freedom too, will be taken by the PLDC elite – that small coterie of puppeteers now pulling their strings for ephemeral favors. Merely look up the word “oligarchs” to see how a society constructed on deception becomes a state consummated in dread.

Will any of this discussion lead to a renewed interest in truth? Probably not but, eventually the People will take back the truth and it won’t be a happy day when they do. The betrayal of the People’s right to the truth by all of the players in the PLDC will be reckoned and truth will again lead the way.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s