(12-14-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The big thing that I think points too many people to cry racism against Obama was that it seemed like an unprecedented level of disrespect was leveled at him during his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents.

(12-14-2016 02:26 PM)JSA Wrote:  There hasn't been a Democratic Chief Justice since 1953.

(12-14-2016 06:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The big thing that I think points too many people to cry racism against Obama was that it seemed like an unprecedented level of disrespect was leveled at him during his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents.

Did Obama really face more "disrespect" than the left's gleeful insulting of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, or the right's genuine hatred of FDR in the 1930s?

(12-14-2016 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Absolutely. In 2008, a similar political newcomer who was white would almost certainly not have gotten the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton.

Eh, I don't know if I would go that far. Clinton still suffered from the same problems she did in 2016, so, IMO, a young, energetic politician of any color who could sell and hope and change could have won.

(12-14-2016 07:29 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:51 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:48 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  Absolutely. In 2008, a similar political newcomer who was white would almost certainly not have gotten the Democratic nomination over Hillary Clinton.

Eh, I don't know if I would go that far. Clinton still suffered from the same problems she did in 2016, so, IMO, a young, energetic politician of any color who could sell and hope and change could have won.

We'll never know for sure, but my sense at the time was that a sizable contingent of the Obama bandwagon in 2008 consisted of people who projected "hope" and "change" on to his candidacy because of his skin color, more than they were persuaded by anything he articulated. Without that contingent, I'm not sure the bandwagon would have been enough to overcome the Clinton operation.

(12-14-2016 07:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The big thing that I think points too many people to cry racism against Obama was that it seemed like an unprecedented level of disrespect was leveled at him during his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents.

Did Obama really face more "disrespect" than the left's gleeful insulting of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, or the right's genuine hatred of FDR in the 1930s?

Hence the "seemed."

I wasn't alive back then to compare, and the majority of people making the claims I was talking about weren't either, I bet. I do know that, as much as people disliked W at the end of his presidency, he didn't have politicians yelling at him during the State of the Union. And same for Clinton (even when Reps on the Hill were trying to morally crucify him).

(12-14-2016 07:13 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:52 PM)georgewebb Wrote:  

(12-14-2016 06:07 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  The big thing that I think points too many people to cry racism against Obama was that it seemed like an unprecedented level of disrespect was leveled at him during his presidency, especially when compared to other presidents.

Did Obama really face more "disrespect" than the left's gleeful insulting of Ronald Reagan in the 1980s, or the right's genuine hatred of FDR in the 1930s?

Hence the "seemed."
I wasn't alive back then to compare, ....

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

(12-15-2016 12:16 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

http://www.climatedepot.com/2016/12/03/extreme-weather-expert-dr-roger-pielke-jr-my-unhappy-life-as-a-climate-heretic/

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

(12-15-2016 08:55 AM)tanqtonic Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

Pielke is actually quite a major voice on the skeptical side, and has been so for close to twenty years.

Quote:I believe climate change is real and that human emissions of greenhouse gases risk justifying action, including a carbon tax. But my research led me to a conclusion that many climate campaigners find unacceptable: There is scant evidence to indicate that hurricanes, floods, tornadoes or drought have become more frequent or intense in the U.S. or globally.

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

For the record, I'm not a denier. I believe that global warming is probably taking place, been to too many retreating glaciers to believe otherwise, and I am quite certain that climate change of some sort is inevitable. Where the AGW crowd loses me is connecting the dots from the earth is warming to therefore, we can't build the XL pipeline. I think the motivation for a lot of it is simply anti-oil, and AGW is a shiny little play thing for them to use in their arguments, without bothering to establish a suitable causal link. It's sort of like being able to call anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

(12-15-2016 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

For the record, I'm not a denier. I believe that global warming is probably taking place, been to too many retreating glaciers to believe otherwise, and I am quite certain that climate change of some sort is inevitable. Where the AGW crowd loses me is connecting the dots from the earth is warming to therefore, we can't build the XL pipeline. I think the motivation for a lot of it is simply anti-oil, and AGW is a shiny little play thing for them to use in their arguments, without bothering to establish a suitable causal link. It's sort of like being able to call anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

This is the same sort of suppression of dissent that you see on the right of people who do research of climate science, support evolution, etc.

This is different than a department not hiring employees or firing them for holding a belief.

(12-15-2016 10:55 AM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

For the record, I'm not a denier. I believe that global warming is probably taking place, been to too many retreating glaciers to believe otherwise, and I am quite certain that climate change of some sort is inevitable. Where the AGW crowd loses me is connecting the dots from the earth is warming to therefore, we can't build the XL pipeline. I think the motivation for a lot of it is simply anti-oil, and AGW is a shiny little play thing for them to use in their arguments, without bothering to establish a suitable causal link. It's sort of like being able to call anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

This is the same sort of suppression of dissent that you see on the right of people who do research of climate science, support evolution, etc.

This is different than a department not hiring employees or firing them for holding a belief.

Not so different. All just parts of the whole. Lots of ways to suppress dissent. Lack of funding for research, denial of tenure, and not hiring people of a particular ideological bent, or a particular professional reputation.

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Not funding research that does not align with your values, research goals, etc. is not suppression of dissent, it is just a misalignment of views.

(12-15-2016 10:17 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:52 AM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 08:13 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Unfortunate to see and hear, but luckily this man was supported by his fellow academics and university. When did he work for the DOE or other federal departments? I read through the blog and couldn't find any information on that.
Also, I found it even more interesting that this researcher was just researching the effects of climate change on serious weather, and ran into such strong opposition. He wasn't even debating whether we had an impact on climate change, just that we haven't seen the severe weather episodes (e.g. Strong hurricanes) that we would expect, recently. This is an unfortunate example of people with influence not doing their homework, and unfairly critiscizing someone. Again, good thing he had the strong support of the academic community.

So it would appear that you would agree that this is one instance of suppression of dissent. Is that correct? Do you believe there are no others? The Grijalva letters were sent to employers of, IIRC, seven dissenters. Would you agree that such actions were intentional suppressions of dissent?

He probably hasn't worked for DOE. With his views, nobody in DOE would hire him. I suppose that's suppression of dissent, too. He did work on the space program, so maybe he worked for NASA, although probably 99% of the people working on the space program are civilian contractors (I used to go to church with a bunch of them, and I work on a project with some of them now), so there's a strong possibility that he has never received a pay check from the federal government.

For the record, I'm not a denier. I believe that global warming is probably taking place, been to too many retreating glaciers to believe otherwise, and I am quite certain that climate change of some sort is inevitable. Where the AGW crowd loses me is connecting the dots from the earth is warming to therefore, we can't build the XL pipeline. I think the motivation for a lot of it is simply anti-oil, and AGW is a shiny little play thing for them to use in their arguments, without bothering to establish a suitable causal link. It's sort of like being able to call anyone who disagrees with you a racist.

This is the same sort of suppression of dissent that you see on the right of people who do research of climate science, support evolution, etc.

This is different than a department not hiring employees or firing them for holding a belief.

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, it sounds like everyone is suppressing dissent everywhere if that's how you look at things. Because that means if any organization has a particular mission.... They are suppressing the dissent of those who don't want to support the [particular mission] by not hiring them.

.

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  A government institution should be non-partisan, as in, it doesn't care if you are left, right, up, or down. It doesn't mean it should provide equal funding to all ideas out there just to seem fair.

(12-15-2016 02:34 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-15-2016 11:15 AM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  Well, it sounds like everyone is suppressing dissent everywhere if that's how you look at things. Because that means if any organization has a particular mission.... They are suppressing the dissent of those who don't want to support the [particular mission] by not hiring them.

.

Yeah, this is what I was saying...this is not new. Just the ones being suppressed is changing. The mission has changed, but not the means of attaining that mission.

Used to be climate change believers in charge, now climate change skeptics in charge. Like so much since 11-8-16, the actions are not changed, just the goals.