No. He exercised his free speech, others exercised their freedom of association. People didn't like that, necessarily, but that's life. Calling it Stalinist is just a way to demonize your opponents.
The Left has captured a whole bunch of fields like science
Wrong. What happened was that the GOP decided that the science in some issues is contrary to their party line, and began to deny it. There is no "Liberal Science", "Conservative Science", "Jewish Science", or "German Science", just science backed by evidence and non-evidence-based denials thereof.
Just because the news media gives you time doesn't mean you have a valid argument; just because you have a vested interest in something being wrong doesn't make it wrong.
It appears you missed my point about the Left capturing fields, it refers to this sort of thing: https://www.google.com/search?q=no+irish As in I wouldn't try to become a scientist today, vs. back in the '80s, I'd have to avoid fields captured by the Left's Gleichschaltung.
In that sense, there was a "German Science", more specifically Deutsche Physik, in that no Jews were allowed to participate.
And no need to go off in partisan weeds, let alone imply there's much overlap between conservatives and Republicans.
Scientists don't care if you're left or right as long as you do good work. The fact party-line GOP dogma prevents scientists from doing good work in some fields is not science's problem, and does not represent scientists ousting conservatives from science.
James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, would beg to differ.
You're also ignoring what it takes to get to the point of being able to do good work (ugrad -> grad -> postdoc -> (in the academic track) professor -> tenure), and that the funding for such work is governed by politics, not "science". ClimateGate showed us how bad that can get.
As for the GOP, they're irrelevant to this discussion, except for the obvious fact they live rent free in your brain.
Climategate is not a real scandal and your mention of it just proves that you have bought in to the GOP's anti-science narrative. Your further accusation that I let the GOP get to me is just insults without basis. You have proved that you have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in a rational discussion.
You aren't going to get very far telling that to anyone who's read the emails in it (their provenance confirmed by the authors), and the diary of the programmer who tried and failed to get their code and data repeating what it had previously done and what that process also revealed, like "hide the decline".
Your under the impression that I'm following a party line, as, opposed to, you know, being something of a scientist myself (MIT Class of '83, degree unfinished due to $$$; heck, I'm even old enough to remember when anthropogenic global cooling was the "scientific consensus"). I actually study original sources before making judgments like this, such as the 1982 TTAPS Nuclear Winter paper in Science (the AAAS journal); I don't need a political party I loathe at the national level to tell me what to think, thus you utterly fail in your attempt to DISQUALIFY me by guilt by association, which your side also labels as McCarthyism.
And ClimateGate was a dump of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, in Norwich, England. I was unaware the GOP's tentacles reached all the way across the Atlantic!
I was unaware the GOP's tentacles reached all the way across the Atlantic!
Not what I claimed, and you're being dishonest. The scandal was created by the GOP. The word was created by the GOP. The fact you're using the word proves you're influenced by the GOP, something you try to hide, for some reason.
You aren't going to get very far telling that to anyone who's read the emails in it (their provenance confirmed by the authors), and the diary of the programmer who tried and failed to get their code and data repeating what it had previously done and what that process also revealed, like "hide the decline".
You read but failed to comprehend. Your failure to comprehend was political in nature, and it aligns perfectly with what the GOP's narrative is. You even use their term. Do you really expect me to be so stupid to believe that was a coincidence?
You misunderstand basic time averaging and the problems of proxies in precisely the way the GOP does and you really expect me to believe that was a coincidence?
"You misunderstand basic time averaging and the problems of proxies"
Nope, the actual data is the one thing I haven't looked at. Because my studies of science haven't sufficiently educated me in that area and I know I'm not qualified (ask me to, say, visualize a molecule in 3D, that's another thing). But I am qualified to understand a programmer's tribulations, having been paid good money to do "software archaeology", and most certainly am qualified to interpret overt conspiracies to keep people from being published, or to get their community to shun a journal that did publish a paper with thoughtcrime.
I have no idea who came up with the name ClimateGate, but seeing as how I was political aware when the Watergate break in happened, and followed the drama to the bitter end, I know that [Fill in the blank]Gate is an automatic, if not the default US naming scheme for scandals. If that makes me influenced by the GOP, by Richard Milhous Nixon no less, so be it!
And again you demonstrate how the GOP lives rent free in your brain, for you cannot even conceive of someone saying what I do from first principles vs. "just regurgitating GOP talking points" and lying about it all.
and most certainly am qualified to interpret overt conspiracies to keep people from being published, or to get their community to shun a journal that did publish a paper with thoughtcrime.
Then you've misinterpreted this, and have done so in precisely the same way the GOP did, even using their word.
I have no idea who came up with the name ClimateGate
You're either lying or dense.
for you cannot even conceive of someone saying what I do from first principles vs. "just regurgitating GOP talking points" and lying about it all.
No, I just refuse to believe that someone would independently reinvent everything the GOP has come up with entirely on their own, and then parade their conclusions around using all the same talking points and words, without being influenced by the GOP.
It's like someone claiming they independently wrote Hamlet. Word for word. Without having read Shakespeare. It just beggars belief.
Comments
No. He exercised his free speech, others exercised their freedom of association. People didn't like that, necessarily, but that's life. Calling it Stalinist is just a way to demonize your opponents.
Wrong. What happened was that the GOP decided that the science in some issues is contrary to their party line, and began to deny it. There is no "Liberal Science", "Conservative Science", "Jewish Science", or "German Science", just science backed by evidence and non-evidence-based denials thereof.
Just because the news media gives you time doesn't mean you have a valid argument; just because you have a vested interest in something being wrong doesn't make it wrong.
It appears you missed my point about the Left capturing fields, it refers to this sort of thing: https://www.google.com/search?q=no+irish As in I wouldn't try to become a scientist today, vs. back in the '80s, I'd have to avoid fields captured by the Left's Gleichschaltung.
In that sense, there was a "German Science", more specifically Deutsche Physik, in that no Jews were allowed to participate.
And no need to go off in partisan weeds, let alone imply there's much overlap between conservatives and Republicans.
Scientists don't care if you're left or right as long as you do good work. The fact party-line GOP dogma prevents scientists from doing good work in some fields is not science's problem, and does not represent scientists ousting conservatives from science.
James Watson, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, would beg to differ.
You're also ignoring what it takes to get to the point of being able to do good work (ugrad -> grad -> postdoc -> (in the academic track) professor -> tenure), and that the funding for such work is governed by politics, not "science". ClimateGate showed us how bad that can get.
As for the GOP, they're irrelevant to this discussion, except for the obvious fact they live rent free in your brain.
Climategate is not a real scandal and your mention of it just proves that you have bought in to the GOP's anti-science narrative. Your further accusation that I let the GOP get to me is just insults without basis. You have proved that you have no idea what you're talking about and have no interest in a rational discussion.
"Climategate is not a real scandal"
You aren't going to get very far telling that to anyone who's read the emails in it (their provenance confirmed by the authors), and the diary of the programmer who tried and failed to get their code and data repeating what it had previously done and what that process also revealed, like "hide the decline".
Your under the impression that I'm following a party line, as, opposed to, you know, being something of a scientist myself (MIT Class of '83, degree unfinished due to $$$; heck, I'm even old enough to remember when anthropogenic global cooling was the "scientific consensus"). I actually study original sources before making judgments like this, such as the 1982 TTAPS Nuclear Winter paper in Science (the AAAS journal); I don't need a political party I loathe at the national level to tell me what to think, thus you utterly fail in your attempt to DISQUALIFY me by guilt by association, which your side also labels as McCarthyism.
And ClimateGate was a dump of emails and data from the Climatic Research Unit of the University of East Anglia, in Norwich, England. I was unaware the GOP's tentacles reached all the way across the Atlantic!
Not what I claimed, and you're being dishonest. The scandal was created by the GOP. The word was created by the GOP. The fact you're using the word proves you're influenced by the GOP, something you try to hide, for some reason.
You read but failed to comprehend. Your failure to comprehend was political in nature, and it aligns perfectly with what the GOP's narrative is. You even use their term. Do you really expect me to be so stupid to believe that was a coincidence?
You misunderstand basic time averaging and the problems of proxies in precisely the way the GOP does and you really expect me to believe that was a coincidence?
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/12/climategate/
The decline relates to tree rings, not temperature. Of course, you'd only know that if you used a source not from the GOP:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Mikes-Nature-trick-hide-the-...
Oh look, something else I hear from GOP supporters.
Wrong. I'm just calling you on your lies; specifically, your lie that you're not just regurgitating GOP talking points.
"You misunderstand basic time averaging and the problems of proxies"
Nope, the actual data is the one thing I haven't looked at. Because my studies of science haven't sufficiently educated me in that area and I know I'm not qualified (ask me to, say, visualize a molecule in 3D, that's another thing). But I am qualified to understand a programmer's tribulations, having been paid good money to do "software archaeology", and most certainly am qualified to interpret overt conspiracies to keep people from being published, or to get their community to shun a journal that did publish a paper with thoughtcrime.
I have no idea who came up with the name ClimateGate, but seeing as how I was political aware when the Watergate break in happened, and followed the drama to the bitter end, I know that [Fill in the blank]Gate is an automatic, if not the default US naming scheme for scandals. If that makes me influenced by the GOP, by Richard Milhous Nixon no less, so be it!
And again you demonstrate how the GOP lives rent free in your brain, for you cannot even conceive of someone saying what I do from first principles vs. "just regurgitating GOP talking points" and lying about it all.
Then you've misinterpreted this, and have done so in precisely the same way the GOP did, even using their word.
You're either lying or dense.
No, I just refuse to believe that someone would independently reinvent everything the GOP has come up with entirely on their own, and then parade their conclusions around using all the same talking points and words, without being influenced by the GOP.
It's like someone claiming they independently wrote Hamlet. Word for word. Without having read Shakespeare. It just beggars belief.
You can't call yourself "class of X" unless you graduated.
Well, that's not how MIT works, and I think it's clearer than saying "matriculated at MIT in the fall of 1979".