Sun, Dec 21, 2014, 2:10 AM EST - U.S. Markets closed

Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

USEC Inc. Message Board

  • lewis_whokeyser lewis_whokeyser Aug 12, 2013 11:33 AM Flag

    OT: Climate Science Under Attack

    Interior Secretary: "I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department"

    Judging by this quote Global Warmism has gone from junk science to a full blown religion! They have vowed not to even consider any evidence that contradicts their belief system and will treat as a religios heretic anybody who disagrees!

    Buried in a lengthy Washington Post article about President Obama’s environmental policy is an illuminating anecdote about just how debatable the administration views climate change — namely, not at all:

    In an agency-wide address to employees Aug. 1, (Interior Secretary Sally) Jewell took the unusual step of suggesting that no one working for her should challenge the idea that human activity is driving recent warming. “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said.

    The address does not appear to be posted on the department’s website, so the Washington Examiner can only go by the Post’s presumably third-hand version. Still, it raises some interesting questions: What would happen to somebody at the department who raised some skepticism regarding Jewell’s take on climate change? Would they be in danger of losing their job?For example, what if that person posted a news article pointing out that the global temperatures have been flat for the last two decades?

    Presumably somebody at the Interior Department knows the answers to these questions. Whether they’re willing to talk openly about them is another question.

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Lewie!
      You still haven't addressed my challenge to your latest ridiculous post. Why are you avoiding that?
      Here it is again:
      ""Interior Secretary: "I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department"
      “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said."

      Two entirely different quotes, Lewie! There's a big difference between the two.
      Which is correct? Do you have any facts, or do you just post this kind of garbage because you need to somehow try to validate your ridiculous views?
      How about addressing this obvious contradiction in your posting. (Typical of your many posts here.)
      There is no longer any debate about the causes or direction of climate change.
      The issue now is how to minimize the outfall and damage that will certainly occur.
      Silly extremist, irrational, reactionary, politically driven, far right-wing old guys like yourself deny reality as mindless puppets of your wealthy, powerful, opportunistic controllers.
      For whatever reason, there are quite a few of your type on this looser board. "

      • 3 Replies to snortdd
      • The two lines you are asking about are first, a byline in a post by the Washington Examiner and, second, a purported quote from the Secretary. So one is a characterization of her meaning and one is a quote. To see why this is the characterization, you need to read the Washington Post article which reads:



        Having not heard the agency-wide address, I cannot vouch for the characterization, but the Post is not high on the list of anti-global warming publications, so I imagine it is a fairly accurate interpretation in the context she was speaking.

      • Still waiting, Lewie...
        How do you explain these entirely different quotes attributed to the same person?
        Help me out. It appears you're blowing smoke.

      • SPIEGEL: Do the computer models with which physicists simulate the future climate ever show the sort of long standstill in temperature change that we're observing right now? Storch: Yes, but only extremely rarely. At my institute, we analyzed how often such a 15-year stagnation in global warming occurred in the simulations. The answer was: in under 2 percent of all the times we ran the simulation. In other words, over 98 percent of forecasts show CO2 emissions as high as we have had in recent years leading to more of a temperature increase. You should should consider this..."Why do people distort reality while awake? The answer is to shield the ego from disturbing information. This is a desirable and useful feature of human adaptation. When such a mechanism fails, the normal psychic boundaries, which maintain the integrity of the ego, collapse, and so does the personality of the individual. The result is often a breakdown in the form of psychosis or severe mental disturbance, such as schizophrenia. In a way, the unconscious is at the forefront of the schizophrenic's reality.

    • The Mayans were wiped out by climate change. I suppose there cars weren't very good. The Greek lost there climate battle. It only took 300 years . The earth has continually changed and some one is always the looser.

    • "Interior Secretary: "I don't want any climate-change deniers in my department"
      “I hope there are no climate-change deniers in the Department of Interior,” she said."

      Two entirely different quotes, Lewie! There's a big difference between the two.
      Which is correct? Do you have any facts, or do you just post this kind of garbage because you need to somehow try to validate your ridiculous views?
      How about addressing this obvious contradiction in your posting. (Typical of your many posts here.)
      There is no longer any debate about the causes or direction of climate change.
      The issue now is how to minimize the outfall and damage that will certainly occur.
      Silly extremist, irrational, reactionary, politically driven, far right-wing old guys like yourself deny reality as mindless puppets of your wealthy, powerful, opportunistic controllers.
      For whatever reason, there are quite a few of your type on this looser board.

    • Always entertaining to observe the 'March of the clowns' here.
      You are all like a flock of lemmings heading for the cliff- while mindlessly gazing at, and absorbing, the extremist nonsense fed to you all by FOX and friends. (Brought to you by the Kochs and others with a self-serving agenda.) Climate change will have to pound you into the ground before you can admit the reality.
      Rock on, children!

    • Not a religion just a paycheck and a heavy investment for a large number of Socialists. Al is still crying about the carbon credit fail to launch disaster...for him. What these guys know about why the Earths climate changes you could put in a shot glass and have room for everything else they know.

    • Lewis, Ms. Jewell is a part of the current liberal movement which expects all citizens to be in lock-step with them (because she said so). My basic comments involve hubristic arrogance (we are always right, those of contrary opinion are always wrong) and hubristic contempt (you don't have our Ivy League pedigrees, so why should we listen to anything that you all in "flyover country" have to say?).

      Personnel like Ms. Jewell should stand as reminders (much like appointments to the US Supreme Court) that elections do have consequences.

      Ms. Jewell is also a specific example of a general phenomenon. The modern liberal is not interested in traditional liberalism (where all viewpoints are heard and debated in a healthy way). Ms. Jewell and her ilk are more interested in suppressing contrary viewpoints (they become temporarily blind when we are in their presence and they become temporarily deaf when we start to speak). Even though the root of the word liberal is the same as the word liberty, she appears to be more interested in advancing tyranny.

      • 1 Reply to muffdad1
      • I think the closest parallel would be Lysenkoism in the old Soviet Union back in the 1920s. Lysenkoism was built on theories of the genetic inheritability of acquired characteristics These theories depart from accepted evolutionary theory and Mendelian inheritance. The problem was that the theory meshed so well with communist philosophy, which aimed to fundamentally transform human nature that it was irresistably attractive to the commisars who ran the government.

        Although Lysenkoism was eventually abandoned it caused the death by starvation of hundreds of thousands soviet peasants. (I guess they didn't have food stamps). The Soviet economy never recovered, adopting instead MORE cental control and planning as the "solution" to the problem their previous "solution" had created.

        There's a good book called "Tulip Mania and the Madness of Crowds" that should be required reading for every member of Congress. Unfortunatly, I suspect some of them would use it as a how-to manual for crowd control.

        I can make money off of the current direction of our government, but sometimes I feel I'm just sellling the deck chairs on the Titanic.
        :^(

 

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.
Under Armour, Inc.
NYSEFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:04 PM EST
ImmunoGen, Inc.
NASDAQFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:00 PM EST
3M Company
NYSEFri, Dec 19, 2014 4:04 PM EST