Donald Trump running for president

[sammpedd88]

the hunter biden story is all over the place...facebook and tweeter blocking just made it a bigger story.


tweet
tweet

aint it sweet

Not only did they block the story, but Twitter suspended the NY Posts official Twitter account for posting the story. WTF????

 

[HIT4ME]

Lol, what. Too many people think that trusting people who are experts is being a sheep. The reason people do PhD's in such narrow fields is because the scope otherwise is far too broad for any human to reasonably become an expert in. We research narrowly due to the sheer volume of knowledge.

Noone can be reasonably expected to know everything about everything, and nobody is capable of doing "their own research" at the same level as someone who specializes in that particular field, therefore we MUST rely on the body of research conducted by a multitude of people in the same field.

Yeah, what? What a cluster.

Nobody should trust an expert just because they are an "expert". An "expert" can tell you WHY they believe what they believe and show you evidence, the fact that all the experts think one way doesn't make it true. Consensus is meaningless. Some examples?

All the expert doctors who didn't listen to Sammelweis and had him committed and ultimately caused his death for his suggestion they were wrong. But hey, you now spread his idea like the germs he didn't even know he was fighting.

How about in the modern day, where we have spent almost 2 decades with the experts saying, "Fighting amyloid plaques will cure Alzheimers." and only now, after a huge number of failures, are they starting to let go of a hypothesis that has yet to have any success.

On the other hand, what made Newton an expert in Newtonian Physics? I mean, he was a pro, sure, but he had MUCH less to work with than you or I do and look at how much success he had in proving all the other experts wrong.

How about Einstein? Do we accept his laws of relativity just because he was an expert? Because...until he came up with those ideas I believe he was working as a patent clerk. Yes, he had schooling. No one saw him as an "expert" it seems. He became an expert based on the validity of his ideas.

Every idea we have, we didn't have at one point. Someone discovered them. They didn't get a doctorate in those ideas BEFORE they discovered them. If one person could discover an idea from nothing, you would think it is only that much easier to do it again after the initial discover.

I mean, even Feynman talks about "discovering" ideas as a child that he would later learn had been discovered a hundred years earlier and it had a name. Yes, a pre-pubescent kid was figuring things out that the best scientists in the world 100 years earlier would have called crazy. Go figure. Of course, he had "more information at his disposal than anyone before him" in the form of readily printed books and public libraries in almost every town, etc.

But since you like experts so much, and you're teaching us all about intellectualism and science - you rolled right over the statement, "The sole source of the validity of an idea is experiment." I would think you would have recognized that since you're such an intellectual. It's a quote from Feynman. Find me someone more qualified than him that says otherwise. As he will point out, experts know nothing for certain, science knows nothing for certain. The best we have is a map that guides us toward how reality works. Hell, he even said he didn't understand his own ideas.

And it is ironic that you start off your "anti-intellectualism" teachings with a statement along the lines of somehow with more information at our disposal than ever, we have become anti-intellectual - and then follow it up with, "nobody is capable of doing 'their own research" - that is pretty funny.

But your point isn't all invalid. Yes, professionals have more resources at their disposal and hopefully have dedicated their lives to the intellectual pursuit of a narrow field. Their work is very important and useful. We use it all the time on this board. How many of us search pubmed for ideas and observations and knowledge? How many times have YOU taken apart a study for flawed methodology, questionable conclusions, etc? Shouldn't you just listen to them because they are experts with degrees and more resources at their disposal than you have? Surely there is NO WAY you could do your own research and question the "experts"?

Or are you telling me you now see the error in your ways and you won't question ANY published Pubmed studies from this point forward because, "Hey, they're experts. I don't have the resources they have. I can't possibly do my own research or my own thinking."

And yes, no one can be expected to know everything - that IS intellectualism. You can always grow and learn - using a framework of intellectual thought and reasoning. You can learn from experts. You can learn from children. You can learn from the fool at the bar.

Again, like Biden and Harris should learn history before they start giving history lessons in a smug and arrogant tone, you should probably learn about intellectual thought before you try to give a lesson on it as well.

Don't get me wrong. Not saying there is no value at all in experts. If I need help, I'm going to an expert for it if I have one at my disposal. I will also question and learn from that expert and determine how much credit I give that "expert" based on a basis of reasoning. Personally, I can tell you I do this with doctors - having had a lot of experience with many doctors as my grandmother had a hard last 5-10 years of life and my dad had a stroke a few years back and my gf has a rare autoimmune disease.

I have had "expert" doctors who clearly did not know ANYTHING....when I was trying to discuss CYP450 enzymes with her to avoid drug interactions with my grandmother, she thought I was talking about receptor sites, etc. She liked to use her "expert" card a lot. She also thought it was OK to give canabinoids to a woman on warfarin. She also thought 3 years of 2-3 grams a day of Tylenol for a frail, malnourished woman was fine - and refused to give her NAC when her liver failed from it. She also thought 50 mg of Fentanyl and 25 mg oxy a day wasn't overdosing this elderly woman, even though she had glassy eyes and was incoherant....until one day she wouldn't wake up and had to go to the ER and then suddenly they had to drop the doses down.

On the other hand, I've had a lot of experts - my gf's skin doctor (involving her autoimmune disease) who love having these conversations and never play their "expert" card those people are usually the ones who clearly know more than me. I will say, "I read this" or "What about this" or "If this works like this, what about this..." and they will say, "Yeah, but here's the evidence" or "yeah, but here is why it doesn't work that way" or "You would think that, but here's the missing piece that you didn't know about."

Both of the doctors described had PhDs and many years of "experience" - both were "experts". But they are very different in how good they are.

Like someone said earlier in this thread, what do you call a doctor who finishes last in their class? Doctor.

A few pages back you said youd vote for people like dixon for ax1 as president, then you said youd even vote Woody despite him being wrong about things. In my view, you are subjectively calling him wrong because your values arent the same as his. That isnt Woody being wrong, that is you projecting your values onto someone else and using that to determine right from wrong.

You do realize that:

1. You picked out a very tongue-in-cheek post.

2. This post still doesn't help your case.

Again, being intellectual and allowing for the freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can't call someone's ideas wrong. You just can't stop them from saying them and you have to allow them the freedom to say what they believe - right or wrong. But, equally, if someone is wrong or you believe they are wrong, you have the right to say as much.

In your "example" of me stifling free speech and being "just like Twitter" you have "caught" me telling someone I disagree with that I would vote for them. This backs up your argument that I am like Twitter and "you can say whatever you like as long as I agree with it" in what way? Basically it shows that he can say what he wants, I can disagree, and I could still "vote" for him. Of course this all, obviously, very tongue in cheek because none of the people on here are running for president (yet).

Further, you should keep in mind how many times I've pointed out these discussions ARE much better with guys like you and Woody around. I've not once told you guys to stop, I've encouraged it - it leads to good discussions. I've even defended you personally on some attacks.

Telling someone they are wrong is part of free speech, and the mere suggestion that you cannot tell someone they are wrong IS stifling free speech AND anti-intellectual.

If you don't get any of this, try running it through your VCR. It sounds like it is pretty smart. (Sorry...this is uncalled for and I don't mean it, just playing with you)

Now that I think of it, my VCR taught me a lot - it must have been smart too. Most of the books I "read" in high school had great acting in them.

 

[manifesto]

Wow.

 

[thebigt]

Not only did they block the story, but Twitter suspended the NY Posts official Twitter account for posting the story. WTF????

the white house press secretary had her account suspended also-i can't even imagine jay carney having anything suspended.

 

[sammpedd88]

the white house press secretary had her account suspended also-i can't even imagine jay carney having anything suspended.

This shitz is insane! So one sided and hypocritical.

 

[manifesto]

Jigzzz probably thinks the accounts should all be suspended....

 

[sammpedd88]

Jigzzz probably thinks the accounts should all be suspended....

I think his account should be suspended

 

[sammpedd88]

I think his account should be suspended

But it would get boring

 

[thebigt]

This shitz is insane! So one sided and hypocritical.

facebook and tweeter are in danger of losing section 230 status....by attempting to cover up the biden story they pulled a barney fife and shot themselves in the foot, imo.

 

[sammpedd88]

I think his account should be suspended

But it would get boring

 

[thebigt]

new york post editorial board: biden campaign not denying post report on hunter biden profiting from joe being VP'

joe biden avoids media on wednesday....imagine that, since he has repeatedly said he had no knowlege of hunters business dealings

 

[thebigt]

'hunter biden tried to cash in big the chinese firm, emails suggest'

quid pro joe is everywhere....SHOW ME THE MONEY-eh joe?

 

[thebigt]

'facebook official who said platform is reducing distribution of hunter biden story has worked for top dems'


facebook policy director previously worked for house majority pac and dccc...wow-who would have thought facebook has extremist leftists in charge

 

[HIT4ME]

View attachment 198730

Wow.

Yeah, there was a news article trying its best to defend Hunter and claiming the US intelligence agencies had already raised concerns over fictitious/bogus emails being created about Hunter as an October surprise. Only they basically referred to these as hacked/stolen emails consistently throughout the article.

I was honestly wondering if these were faked emails given some random computer repair guy got them...but even the dem side is admitting they are real...calling them hacked/stolen. Like they shouldn't matter because he shouldn't have gotten caught.

But in the end, we all knew this is going on. How many people do you know that get paid millions of dollars from wealthy people in other countries with no apparent skills to back it up? You have to be pretty blind to not see how corrupt this is.

 

[thebigt]

Yeah, there was a news article trying its best to defend Hunter and claiming the US intelligence agencies had already raised concerns over fictitious/bogus emails being created about Hunter as an October surprise. Only they basically referred to these as hacked/stolen emails consistently throughout the article.

I was honestly wondering if these were faked emails given some random computer repair guy got them...but even the dem side is admitting they are real...calling them hacked/stolen. Like they shouldn't matter because he shouldn't have gotten caught.

But in the end, we all knew this is going on. How many people do you know that get paid millions of dollars from wealthy people in other countries with no apparent skills to back it up? You have to be pretty blind to not see how corrupt this is.

democrats are pretty blind when it comes to other democrats...you notice #metoo went silent when accusations about biden came out-eh?

 

[thebigt]

from a insider not politically connected: the emails in the biden story have been verified-they're solid. the vadym pozharskiy
email address has historical data dating back to 2014. furthermore, it is registered to the address of burisma.

 

[thebigt]

;kamala harris's former press secretary is the face of twitter censorship'

 

[thebigt]

tonight biden is having a town hall---too bad the pile of horse crap won't be under oath!!!

they absolutely HAVE to ask him about hunter and i got $20 that says he lies his fuckingassoff---any takers?

 

[thebigt]

breaking: audio pt2 of cia whistle-blower alan parrot...this is on youtube @ax1

 

[ax1]

breaking: audio pt2 of cia whistle-blower alan parrot...this is on youtube @ax1

But, I thought he lived inside the ocean with the dolphins practicing Muslim culture.....RRROOOFFLLLLLL

I really cant believe so many people bought that bullshyt.

 

[thebigt]

'defund police' movement drives officers toward trump'

police unions who have previously kept mum on political positions at any level are siding with the president, creating a trickle-down effect.

a law enforcement officer would have to be awfully unaware to support a democrat, imo....'even the delaware fratenal order of police ditched biden'

 

[thebigt]

But, I thought he lived inside the ocean with the dolphins practicing Muslim culture.....RRROOOFFLLLLLL

I really cant believe so many people bought that bullshyt.

thought you would like that!!!

 

[thebigt]

westmoreland county, PA. sheriff james albert, 70, wrote in a scathing op-ed that he was outraged by democrat's refusal to condemn "arson, mob rule and attacks against law enforcement"....albert, a lifelong democrat changed his party affiliation to republican.

you go JAMES, proud of ya!!!

 

[dixonk]

'defund police' movement drives officers toward trump'

police unions who have previously kept mum on political positions at any level are siding with the president, creating a trickle-down effect.

a law enforcement officer would have to be awfully unaware to support a democrat, imo....'even the delaware fratenal order of police ditched biden'

Ive never heard of a dem LEO. Maybe some elected officers. But not patrol guys.

 

[thebigt]

c-span suspends steve scully after lying about his twitter account being hacked---this is the jerk who was slated to be moderator of debate before it was cancelled...another lying, cheating, fraudulent democrat---seems to be a lot of them-eh?

you remember donna brazil?

 

[thebigt]

Ive never heard of a dem LEO. Maybe some elected officers. But not patrol guys.

it used to be that way in the military, but unfortunately many of this new breed are indoctrinated by the school system of 'woke' politics.

 

[thebigt]

'dem senate candidate mark kelly apologizes for staffers obscene tweet about cops'

the SOB/POS apologizes but doesn't FIRE staffer.

water seeks the lowest level=democrats

 

[thebigt]

joe biden-my comments do not reflect who i am or what i believe...i will tell you anything i think you want to hear to be elected-regardless of anything to the contrary i might have said in the past....i guess the same could be said for all democrat politicians.

 

[thebigt]

this is ironic---before the hunter biden email story went down i would have bet money trump would have much higher ratings for his town hall than biden.

now i for one will be watching the biden town hall and recording trump.

very eager to see how this plays out---hopefully i will get to see biden have a meltdown, i will have popcorn!!!!

 

[thebigt]

steve scully blames trump for his lie about tweet...lol-democrats have NO shame!!!

trump made me do it

hey @Jiigzz fairness in media?

many suggest the debate commission cancelled debate because they knew scully was lying and used trump having covid as excuse.

scully also lied about account being hacked in 2012 and 2013, so he is a serial liar and this is who they chose as moderator?

 

[thebigt]

damn, little georgie [bill clintons fixer] failed to even ask biden about the hunter email story....guess i underestimated how much the media fix is in for biden.

 

[thebigt]

biden says 'instead of cops shooting to kill they should shoot them in the leg', that moron actually said that...obviously he has never been in a life threatening situation.


if i shoot my gun it's getting emptied.

 

[Jiigzz]

steve scully blames trump for his lie about tweet...lol-democrats have NO shame!!!

trump made me do it

hey @Jiigzz fairness in media?

many suggest the debate commission cancelled debate because they knew scully was lying and used trump having covid as excuse.

scully also lied about account being hacked in 2012 and 2013, so he is a serial liar and this is who they chose as moderator?

Trump is a serial liar and he's President

 

[Jiigzz]

Yeah, what? What a cluster.

Nobody should trust an expert just because they are an "expert". An "expert" can tell you WHY they believe what they believe and show you evidence, the fact that all the experts think one way doesn't make it true. Consensus is meaningless. Some examples?

All the expert doctors who didn't listen to Sammelweis and had him committed and ultimately caused his death for his suggestion they were wrong. But hey, you now spread his idea like the germs he didn't even know he was fighting.

How about in the modern day, where we have spent almost 2 decades with the experts saying, "Fighting amyloid plaques will cure Alzheimers." and only now, after a huge number of failures, are they starting to let go of a hypothesis that has yet to have any success.

On the other hand, what made Newton an expert in Newtonian Physics? I mean, he was a pro, sure, but he had MUCH less to work with than you or I do and look at how much success he had in proving all the other experts wrong.

How about Einstein? Do we accept his laws of relativity just because he was an expert? Because...until he came up with those ideas I believe he was working as a patent clerk. Yes, he had schooling. No one saw him as an "expert" it seems. He became an expert based on the validity of his ideas.

Every idea we have, we didn't have at one point. Someone discovered them. They didn't get a doctorate in those ideas BEFORE they discovered them. If one person could discover an idea from nothing, you would think it is only that much easier to do it again after the initial discover.

I mean, even Feynman talks about "discovering" ideas as a child that he would later learn had been discovered a hundred years earlier and it had a name. Yes, a pre-pubescent kid was figuring things out that the best scientists in the world 100 years earlier would have called crazy. Go figure. Of course, he had "more information at his disposal than anyone before him" in the form of readily printed books and public libraries in almost every town, etc.

But since you like experts so much, and you're teaching us all about intellectualism and science - you rolled right over the statement, "The sole source of the validity of an idea is experiment." I would think you would have recognized that since you're such an intellectual. It's a quote from Feynman. Find me someone more qualified than him that says otherwise. As he will point out, experts know nothing for certain, science knows nothing for certain. The best we have is a map that guides us toward how reality works. Hell, he even said he didn't understand his own ideas.

And it is ironic that you start off your "anti-intellectualism" teachings with a statement along the lines of somehow with more information at our disposal than ever, we have become anti-intellectual - and then follow it up with, "nobody is capable of doing 'their own research" - that is pretty funny.

But your point isn't all invalid. Yes, professionals have more resources at their disposal and hopefully have dedicated their lives to the intellectual pursuit of a narrow field. Their work is very important and useful. We use it all the time on this board. How many of us search pubmed for ideas and observations and knowledge? How many times have YOU taken apart a study for flawed methodology, questionable conclusions, etc? Shouldn't you just listen to them because they are experts with degrees and more resources at their disposal than you have? Surely there is NO WAY you could do your own research and question the "experts"?

Or are you telling me you now see the error in your ways and you won't question ANY published Pubmed studies from this point forward because, "Hey, they're experts. I don't have the resources they have. I can't possibly do my own research or my own thinking."

And yes, no one can be expected to know everything - that IS intellectualism. You can always grow and learn - using a framework of intellectual thought and reasoning. You can learn from experts. You can learn from children. You can learn from the fool at the bar.

Again, like Biden and Harris should learn history before they start giving history lessons in a smug and arrogant tone, you should probably learn about intellectual thought before you try to give a lesson on it as well.

Don't get me wrong. Not saying there is no value at all in experts. If I need help, I'm going to an expert for it if I have one at my disposal. I will also question and learn from that expert and determine how much credit I give that "expert" based on a basis of reasoning. Personally, I can tell you I do this with doctors - having had a lot of experience with many doctors as my grandmother had a hard last 5-10 years of life and my dad had a stroke a few years back and my gf has a rare autoimmune disease.

I have had "expert" doctors who clearly did not know ANYTHING....when I was trying to discuss CYP450 enzymes with her to avoid drug interactions with my grandmother, she thought I was talking about receptor sites, etc. She liked to use her "expert" card a lot. She also thought it was OK to give canabinoids to a woman on warfarin. She also thought 3 years of 2-3 grams a day of Tylenol for a frail, malnourished woman was fine - and refused to give her NAC when her liver failed from it. She also thought 50 mg of Fentanyl and 25 mg oxy a day wasn't overdosing this elderly woman, even though she had glassy eyes and was incoherant....until one day she wouldn't wake up and had to go to the ER and then suddenly they had to drop the doses down.

On the other hand, I've had a lot of experts - my gf's skin doctor (involving her autoimmune disease) who love having these conversations and never play their "expert" card those people are usually the ones who clearly know more than me. I will say, "I read this" or "What about this" or "If this works like this, what about this..." and they will say, "Yeah, but here's the evidence" or "yeah, but here is why it doesn't work that way" or "You would think that, but here's the missing piece that you didn't know about."

Both of the doctors described had PhDs and many years of "experience" - both were "experts". But they are very different in how good they are.

Like someone said earlier in this thread, what do you call a doctor who finishes last in their class? Doctor.




You do realize that:

1. You picked out a very tongue-in-cheek post.

2. This post still doesn't help your case.

Again, being intellectual and allowing for the freedom of speech doesn't mean that you can't call someone's ideas wrong. You just can't stop them from saying them and you have to allow them the freedom to say what they believe - right or wrong. But, equally, if someone is wrong or you believe they are wrong, you have the right to say as much.

In your "example" of me stifling free speech and being "just like Twitter" you have "caught" me telling someone I disagree with that I would vote for them. This backs up your argument that I am like Twitter and "you can say whatever you like as long as I agree with it" in what way? Basically it shows that he can say what he wants, I can disagree, and I could still "vote" for him. Of course this all, obviously, very tongue in cheek because none of the people on here are running for president (yet).

Further, you should keep in mind how many times I've pointed out these discussions ARE much better with guys like you and Woody around. I've not once told you guys to stop, I've encouraged it - it leads to good discussions. I've even defended you personally on some attacks.

Telling someone they are wrong is part of free speech, and the mere suggestion that you cannot tell someone they are wrong IS stifling free speech AND anti-intellectual.

If you don't get any of this, try running it through your VCR. It sounds like it is pretty smart. (Sorry...this is uncalled for and I don't mean it, just playing with you)

Now that I think of it, my VCR taught me a lot - it must have been smart too. Most of the books I "read" in high school had great acting in them.

Anti-intellectualism doesnt mean what you think it means, or at the very least, you all have grossly misinterpreted its definition.

Anti-intellectualism is the dismissal or even contempt of science's, art's and other forms of academic pursuits. It doesnt matter what level of education the person has, I only used that as an example. It's also not about trusting all experts, or about all experts being right. It is about contempt for science in general and a flat out refusal to accept anything someone in those fields says.

General examples when people say the earth is flat, or that ice and snow is evidence that global warming is a myth. That's a lack of critical thinking; that is anti-intellectualism.

 

[sammpedd88]

Trump is a serial liar and he's President

All politicians are serial liars. So what’s your point?

 

[thebigt]

biden says 'it's absolutely ok to raise taxes on wealthy americans and corporations during a weak economy because his economic plan would spur growth and create jobs...

mmm i always thought it was the wealthy and corporations who did the hiring...if you raise their taxes during a weak economy they are going to lay workers off and prices will soar....

 

[Woody]

i turned on the ACB hearing [if thats what you want to call it] in time to hear STOLEN VALOR blumenthall say he is disappointed in her answer....well i am disappointed to see you as a senator you lying pile of horse crap.

harris isn't much better, but at least she hasn't lied about her military service--almost everything else , yes-but not that.

She is a smart pick for confirmation purposes but she has no business being on SCOTUS. She’s never represented a client. She’s not an attorney, she’s a professor. She has no idea how to present evidence to a judge or jury. She has no idea how to argue for a warrant or to argue a motion for summary judgment. You cannot make procedural and evidentiary rulings if you do not understand procedure and evidence beyond the classroom.

I would not trust a licensed surgeon who has never performed a surgery to operate on my pinky toe.

While I’m against the Court leaning one way or another, there are plenty of conservative judges that have actually tried a case to a jury or even argued it on appeal that should have gotten consideration.

 

[sammpedd88]

biden says 'it's absolutely ok to raise taxes on wealthy americans and corporations during a weak economy because his economic plan would spur growth and create jobs...

mmm i always thought it was the wealthy and corporations who did the hiring...if you raise their taxes during a weak economy they are going to lay workers off and prices will soar....

You make too much sense BigT!

 

[Jiigzz]

All politicians are serial liars. So what’s your point?

Did you read the comment I quoted?

 

[Jiigzz]

Anti-intellectualism doesnt mean what you think it means, or at the very least, you all have grossly misinterpreted its definition.

Anti-intellectualism is the dismissal or even contempt of science's, art's and other forms of academic pursuits. It doesnt matter what level of education the person has, I only used that as an example. It's also not about trusting all experts, or about all experts being right. It is about contempt for science in general and a flat out refusal to accept anything someone in those fields says.

General examples when people say the earth is flat, or that ice and snow is evidence that global warming is a myth. That's a lack of critical thinking; that is anti-intellectualism.

Just to add to this, a lack of critical thinking is why supp companies can still sell arginine, creatine ethyl ester or a host of other ingredients with non-existent bioavailability.

It is why people would rather trust a random on social media instead of virologists during a pandemic.

It is how we get people who believe 5G causes Covid.

Or how we get Faceboomers dismissing vaccine research and opting to not vaccinate their children.

In some cases, like the supplement examples it is harmless. Might waste a few dollars but that's about it. In others, it can quite literally cost people their lives.

The clincher though, is that neither of you can prove or disprove these things without referring to another person or another body of work that someone else did. I cant prove that CEE doesnt work, I need to reference research that someone else has done. The second I do that the person just says "I dont believe it, it's all paid research by Big Monohydrate to stop sales of CEE".

They're still wrong, but now they are doubling down on their anti-intellectualism to waste their money.

But when the stakes are higher, like misunderstanding the differences between how ethyl and methyl are metabolized, then you end up with hordes of anti-vaxxers claiming the mercury in vaccines is harmful when it isnt. You can disprove them without showing them research, and they just say "Big Pharma wants you to believe it's safe, but I know the TROOF!" And so on.

 

[HIT4ME]

Anti-intellectualism doesnt mean what you think it means, or at the very least, you all have grossly misinterpreted its definition.

Anti-intellectualism is the dismissal or even contempt of science's, art's and other forms of academic pursuits. It doesnt matter what level of education the person has, I only used that as an example. It's also not about trusting all experts, or about all experts being right. It is about contempt for science in general and a flat out refusal to accept anything someone in those fields says.

General examples when people say the earth is flat, or that ice and snow is evidence that global warming is a myth. That's a lack of critical thinking; that is anti-intellectualism.

We aren't total opposites here; but I believe we have some nuance issues. Science has nothing to do with "experts". Something is NEVER true, merely because an expert says it. As a matter of fact, if the only evidence one can give that something is true is, "There is a consensus" - then you probably have a big issue. Things that are actually based in evidence hardly ever mention that they have a consensus - they mention the evidence.

You don't hear that gravity is generally accepted to be a "truth" because the consensus is that it exists. No, you can experiment for yourself and figure it out - how many times do you have to drop something before it will not fall to the earth?

The earth is round thing is NOT anti-intellectual because it questions scientists. It is anti-intellectual because it lacks experimental evidence - or maybe worse because it ignores evidence for a pre-conceived idea that doesn't hold up to observation. You can run any number of experiments yourself, that with just the tiniest bit of logical reasoning, you can figure out the world is more likely round than flat. All you need is two sticks and some sunlight.

In contrast, global warming (if you are referring to man-made global warming) lacks any scientific experiment that has been tested to prove man has caused it. It's anti-intellectual and arrogant. But the fact the evidence is lacking is on plain display because nobody ever says, "here is the raw evidence" - it's always "there is a consensus".

Sure, your point that ice and snow being seen as evidence isn't entirely invalid. It IS evidence. But it isn't necessarily definitive. It's not convincing evidence once you get more facts - which you are right, an expert should be able to explain some of those missing pieces of the puzzle.

And maybe I'm wrong about that one. Again, I've asked a number of people to provide me with actual evidence of why they think man has caused global warming, and the best I have ever gotten was a NASA report that spent 5 pages at the end discussing how they lacked evidence so they had to create a predictive model, and because they lacked the evidence for that model they had to estimate some facts - hardly a "proof" IMO. At least they were honest, but somehow people just skip over those sections.

Sure, NASA is an expert I guess. They certainly know more than me. But that should make it that much easier for them to prove it to me, right? Since they should have all the evidence at hand.

I accept what a lot of scientists have to say, but not ever just because they are scientists. I like to see the evidence. I've read some really good things from scientists that have really made it hard not to change my views because they laid out overwhelming evidence, which was based on their observations that had been replicated, and usually have some "testability" either - the theory they propose explains something that I know to be true in a way that is better than the alternative, or I can directly test it.

And you'd be surprised what you can directly test with a little imagination and some logic. Sure we aren't going to have access to a large particle accelerator, but there are a lot of things you can figure out are true based on their usefulness or creative experiment.

A good example of "science" that gets criticized as not being science is string theory, right? Since there is no experiment you can do on it to prove or disprove the theory, it is not science - at least not at this point.

Just to add to this, a lack of critical thinking is why supp companies can still sell arginine, creatine ethyl ester or a host of other ingredients with non-existent bioavailability.

It is why people would rather trust a random on social media instead of virologists during a pandemic.

It is how we get people who believe 5G causes Covid.

Or how we get Faceboomers dismissing vaccine research and opting to not vaccinate their children.

In some cases, like the supplement examples it is harmless. Might waste a few dollars but that's about it. In others, it can quite literally cost people their lives.

The clincher though, is that neither of you can prove or disprove these things without referring to another person or another body of work that someone else did. I cant prove that CEE doesnt work, I need to reference research that someone else has done. The second I do that the person just says "I dont believe it, it's all paid research by Big Monohydrate to stop sales of CEE".

They're still wrong, but now they are doubling down on their anti-intellectualism to waste their money.

But when the stakes are higher, like misunderstanding the differences between how ethyl and methyl are metabolized, then you end up with hordes of anti-vaxxers claiming the mercury in vaccines is harmful when it isnt. You can disprove them without showing them research, and they just say "Big Pharma wants you to believe it's safe, but I know the TROOF!" And so on.

Yeah, don't get me wrong. I don't disagree that people need better training in how to think with reasoning and logic. I will agree that MOST of the people who know the least, question the experts the most. I have a saying I tell people I work with, "The people who need your help the most, recognize it the least. The people who need your help the least, appreciate it the most." People just don't realize when they lack knowledge. It's a challenge we all face at all times.

And the ease of someone who knows nothing about what they are saying spreading information to mass audiences is tremendous in today's age.

But do you find it ironic that you were defending Twitter and Facebook a few pages ago and now you specifically point them out in your examples of anti-intellectualism? I mean, they will allow anti-vaxxers to make stupid, untrue claims, but they are going to censor any articles about Biden that aren't flattering in the name of "quality of evidence"? If they have an unbiased standard, it is some algorithm that I can't figure out.

Also, most "experts" aren't doing experiments either - they are reading the research and interpreting. Some experts barely even read the reaseach. Doctors are a good example of this, some read research, some don't. In their day-to-day jobs the research doesn't really matter because it is more about protocol than anything else.

Having said that, talking to people in different fields can be very enlightening. I often email the people who publish interesting pubmed research to discuss their research with them and get deeper views. About 50% of the time they don't respond, often they like to talk about it briefly, and sometimes they are excited to talk about it. But even with some brief insight; I've had some people write 1-2 sentence replies that I didn't understand at all at first and my understanding gets completely changed once I dig into what those 2 sentences mean.

Anyway, today has been busy. I'm worn out. Good chat, my worthy foe. haha.

 

[sammpedd88]

Did you read the comment I quoted?

Which one are you referring to?

 

[thebigt]

Just to add to this, a lack of critical thinking is why supp companies can still sell arginine, creatine ethyl ester or a host of other ingredients with non-existent bioavailability.

It is why people would rather trust a random on social media instead of virologists during a pandemic.

It is how we get people who believe 5G causes Covid.

Or how we get Faceboomers dismissing vaccine research and opting to not vaccinate their children.

In some cases, like the supplement examples it is harmless. Might waste a few dollars but that's about it. In others, it can quite literally cost people their lives.

The clincher though, is that neither of you can prove or disprove these things without referring to another person or another body of work that someone else did. I cant prove that CEE doesnt work, I need to reference research that someone else has done. The second I do that the person just says "I dont believe it, it's all paid research by Big Monohydrate to stop sales of CEE".

They're still wrong, but now they are doubling down on their anti-intellectualism to waste their money.

But when the stakes are higher, like misunderstanding the differences between how ethyl and methyl are metabolized, then you end up with hordes of anti-vaxxers claiming the mercury in vaccines is harmful when it isnt. You can disprove them without showing them research, and they just say "Big Pharma wants you to believe it's safe, but I know the TROOF!" And so on.

show me 1, just 1 person on this forum who is recommending arginine or CEE, ok the clock is on-waiting!!!!

 

[thebigt]

You make too much sense BigT!

if biden and democrats raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations not only will they raise prices to offset the loss of profits they will also cut back workforce. remember when companies and corporations put hiring freezes in effect because of obama care-they also went to hiring temporary workers instead of hiring full time employees...the people who always get hurt is the consumer [everyone of us], not the companies/corporations....look how low gas prices have been since trump took office, when obama/biden was in office people were fearful gas would top $5 gallon. gas prices affect prices of everything!!!


as if the economy isn't in trouble already due to covid, and winter is coming.

 

[sammpedd88]

if biden and democrats raise taxes on the wealthy and corporations not only will they raise prices to offset the loss of profits they will also cut back workforce. remember when companies and corporations put hiring freezes in effect because of obama care-they also went to hiring temporary workers instead of hiring full time employees...the people who always get hurt is the consumer [everyone of us], not the companies/corporations....look how low gas prices have been since trump took office, when obama/biden was in office people were fearful gas would top $5 gallon. gas prices affect prices of everything!!!

Oh yeah. Obama care alone hurt the economy more than people want to admit. Not only were people cut to part-time like you said, but employers forced employees to remove their spouses from their health insurance policies if the spouse’s employer provided health insurance. Happened to me. I was already paying family coverage for myself and my children. Got remarried and added the wife and two step children. Obama care allowed my employer to remove my wife so now she pays for health insurance through her employer. Added cost out of my household.

Plus the penalty for the mandate! That’s BS. If I don’t want insurance I shouldn’t be forced to get it. Granted at my age and family situation is worth it’s weight in gold, but if I were a single young business guy making decent money and healthy I’d take my chances without it.

No one wants to look at facts. They call Trump a racist but provide no evidence. Say he colluded with Russia but that was proven a farce. He’s mean, he’s stupid he’s this he’s that. But Biden is a racist and there’s proof. He’s a liar and there’s a ton of proof. He created the crime bill that BLM is raising hell about but the media lets him get away with it and blacks will still vote for him. Blows me away.

 

[ax1]

.And maybe I'm wrong about that one. Again, I've asked a number of people to provide me with actual evidence of why they think man has caused global warming, and the best I have ever gotten was a NASA report that spent 5 pages at the end discussing how they lacked evidence so they had to create a predictive model, and because they lacked the evidence for that model they had to estimate some facts - hardly a "proof" IMO. At least they were honest, but somehow people just skip over those sections.

Sure, NASA is an expert I guess. They certainly know more than me. But that should make it that much easier for them to prove it to me, right? Since they should have all the evidence at hand.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space centre in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.


H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realised that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

• “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
• “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
• “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: arse Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight centre

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space centre, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space centre, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, arse.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, arse’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, arse’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

 

[thebigt]

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE


Contact: Blanquita Cullum 703-307-9510 bqview at mac.com

Joint letter to NASA Administrator blasts agency’s policy of ignoring empirical evidence

HOUSTON, TX – April 10, 2012.

49 former NASA scientists and astronauts sent a letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden last week admonishing the agency for it’s role in advocating a high degree of certainty that man-made CO2 is a major cause of climate change while neglecting empirical evidence that calls the theory into question.

The group, which includes seven Apollo astronauts and two former directors of NASA’s Johnson Space centre in Houston, are dismayed over the failure of NASA, and specifically the Goddard Institute For Space Studies (GISS), to make an objective assessment of all available scientific data on climate change. They charge that NASA is relying too heavily on complex climate models that have proven scientifically inadequate in predicting climate only one or two decades in advance.


H. Leighton Steward, chairman of the non-profit Plants Need CO2, noted that many of the former NASA scientists harbored doubts about the significance of the C02-climate change theory and have concerns over NASA’s advocacy on the issue. While making presentations in late 2011 to many of the signatories of the letter, Steward realised that the NASA scientists should make their concerns known to NASA and the GISS.

“These American heroes – the astronauts that took to space and the scientists and engineers that put them there – are simply stating their concern over NASA’s extreme advocacy for an unproven theory,” said Leighton Steward. “There’s a concern that if it turns out that CO2 is not a major cause of climate change, NASA will have put the reputation of NASA, NASA’s current and former employees, and even the very reputation of science itself at risk of public ridicule and distrust.”

Select excerpts from the letter:

• “The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.”
• “We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated.”
• “We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject.”

The full text of the letter:

March 28, 2012

The Honorable Charles Bolden, Jr.
NASA Administrator
NASA Headquarters
Washington, D.C. 20546-0001

Dear Charlie,

We, the undersigned, respectfully request that NASA and the Goddard Institute for Space Studies (GISS) refrain from including unproven remarks in public releases and websites. We believe the claims by NASA and GISS, that man-made carbon dioxide is having a catastrophic impact on global climate change are not substantiated, especially when considering thousands of years of empirical data. With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from the GISS leadership, it is clear that the science is NOT settled.

The unbridled advocacy of CO2 being the major cause of climate change is unbecoming of NASA’s history of making an objective assessment of all available scientific data prior to making decisions or public statements.

As former NASA employees, we feel that NASA’s advocacy of an extreme position, prior to a thorough study of the possible overwhelming impact of natural climate drivers is inappropriate. We request that NASA refrain from including unproven and unsupported remarks in its future releases and websites on this subject. At risk is damage to the exemplary reputation of NASA, NASA’s current or former scientists and employees, and even the reputation of science itself.

For additional information regarding the science behind our concern, we recommend that you contact Harrison Schmitt or Walter Cunningham, or others they can recommend to you.

Thank you for considering this request.

Sincerely,

(Attached signatures)

CC: Mr. John Grunsfeld, Associate Administrator for Science

CC: arse Mr. Chris Scolese, Director, Goddard Space Flight centre

Ref: Letter to NASA Administrator Charles Bolden, dated 3-26-12, regarding a request for NASA to refrain from making unsubstantiated claims that human produced CO2 is having a catastrophic impact on climate change.

/s/ Jack Barneburg, Jack – JSC, Space Shuttle Structures, Engineering Directorate, 34 years

/s/ Larry Bell – JSC, Mgr. Crew Systems Div., Engineering Directorate, 32 years

/s/ Dr. Donald Bogard – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 41 years

/s/ Jerry C. Bostick – JSC, Principal Investigator, Science Directorate, 23 years

/s/ Dr. Phillip K. Chapman – JSC, Scientist – astronaut, 5 years

/s/ Michael F. Collins, JSC, Chief, Flight Design and Dynamics Division, MOD, 41 years

/s/ Dr. Kenneth Cox – JSC, Chief Flight Dynamics Div., Engr. Directorate, 40 years

/s/ Walter Cunningham – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 7, 8 years

/s/ Dr. Donald M. Curry – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Leading Edge, Thermal Protection Sys., Engr. Dir., 44 years

/s/ Leroy Day – Hdq. Deputy Director, Space Shuttle Program, 19 years

/s/ Dr. Henry P. Decell, Jr. – JSC, Chief, Theory & Analysis Office, 5 years

/s/Charles F. Deiterich – JSC, Mgr., Flight Operations Integration, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Harold Doiron – JSC, Chairman, Shuttle Pogo Prevention Panel, 16 years

/s/ Charles Duke – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 16, 10 years

/s/ Anita Gale

/s/ Grace Germany – JSC, Program Analyst, 35 years

/s/ Ed Gibson – JSC, Astronaut Skylab 4, 14 years

/s/ Richard Gordon – JSC, Astronaut, Gemini Xi, Apollo 12, 9 years

/s/ Gerald C. Griffin – JSC, Apollo Flight Director, and Director of Johnson Space centre, 22 years

/s/ Thomas M. Grubbs – JSC, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance and Engineering Branch, 31 years

/s/ Thomas J. Harmon

/s/ David W. Heath – JSC, Reentry Specialist, MOD, 30 years

/s/ Miguel A. Hernandez, Jr. – JSC, Flight crew training and operations, 3 years

/s/ James R. Roundtree – JSC Branch Chief, 26 years

/s/ Enoch Jones – JSC, Mgr. SE&I, Shuttle Program Office, 26 years

/s/ Dr. Joseph Kerwin – JSC, Astronaut, Skylab 2, Director of Space and Life Sciences, 22 years

/s/ Jack Knight – JSC, Chief, Advanced Operations and Development Division, MOD, 40 years

/s/ Dr. Christopher C. Kraft – JSC, Apollo Flight Director and Director of Johnson Space centre, 24 years

/s/ Paul C. Kramer – JSC, arse.t for Planning Aeroscience and Flight Mechanics Div., Egr. Dir., 34 years

/s/ Alex (Skip) Larsen

/s/ Dr. Lubert Leger – JSC, arse’t. Chief Materials Division, Engr. Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Dr. Humbolt C. Mandell – JSC, Mgr. Shuttle Program Control and Advance Programs, 40 years

/s/ Donald K. McCutchen – JSC, Project Engineer – Space Shuttle and ISS Program Offices, 33 years

/s/ Thomas L. (Tom) Moser – Hdq. Dep. Assoc. Admin. & Director, Space Station Program, 28 years

/s/ Dr. George Mueller – Hdq., Assoc. Adm., Office of Space Flight, 6 years

/s/ Tom Ohesorge

/s/ James Peacock – JSC, Apollo and Shuttle Program Office, 21 years

/s/ Richard McFarland – JSC, Mgr. Motion Simulators, 28 years

/s/ Joseph E. Rogers – JSC, Chief, Structures and Dynamics Branch, Engr. Directorate,40 years

/s/ Bernard J. Rosenbaum – JSC, Chief Engineer, Propulsion and Power Division, Engr. Dir., 48 years

/s/ Dr. Harrison (Jack) Schmitt – JSC, Astronaut Apollo 17, 10 years

/s/ Gerard C. Shows – JSC, Asst. Manager, Quality Assurance, 30 years

/s/ Kenneth Suit – JSC, arse’t Mgr., Systems Integration, Space Shuttle, 37 years

/s/ Robert F. Thompson – JSC, Program Manager, Space Shuttle, 44 years/s/ Frank Van Renesselaer – Hdq., Mgr. Shuttle Solid Rocket Boosters, 15 years

/s/ Dr. James Visentine – JSC Materials Branch, Engineering Directorate, 30 years

/s/ Manfred (Dutch) von Ehrenfried – JSC, Flight Controller; Mercury, Gemini & Apollo, MOD, 10 years

/s/ George Weisskopf – JSC, Avionics Systems Division, Engineering Dir., 40 years

/s/ Al Worden – JSC, Astronaut, Apollo 15, 9 years

/s/ Thomas (Tom) Wysmuller – JSC, Meteorologist, 5 years

lol...what were they predicting in the 70's?--ICE AGE...this is fact, we were told the earth was cooling!!!

 

[ax1]

But do you find it ironic that you were defending Twitter and Facebook a few pages ago and now you specifically point them out in your examples of anti-intellectualism? I mean, they will allow anti-vaxxers to make stupid, untrue claims, but they are going to censor any articles about Biden that aren't flattering in the name of "quality of evidence"? If they have an unbiased standard, it is some algorithm that I can't figure out.

They hire independent groups and "fact checkers" to do some of the policing. John Stossel was flagged down and he recently did a report on his experience.

 

[ax1]

lol...what were they predicting in the 70's--ICE AGE...this is fact, we were told the earth was cooling!!!

I remember the 80s was all catastrophe if we didnt save the Amazon Rainforest and also how there was a giant hole over the ozone layer. What the F' happened to that????? Someone fill up the ozone layer? Speaking of why, Im sure blowing it up with nukes may have had something to do with it, but blame tree loggers.

 

[thebigt]

They hire independent groups and "fact checkers" to do some of the policing. John Stossel was flagged down and he recently did a report on his experience.

activists rule social media....independent fact checkers my ass!!!