On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...

On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.

On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?


And that tenure will protect research grants?

On 11/4/2015 1:50 PM, Califbill wrote:
Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?


And that tenure will protect research grants?



One of the attributes used to be considered for tenure status is the
ability to secure research grants.

On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal
bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a
communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared
that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio
when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the
cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing?

Justan Olphart wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:42 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:24 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 1:11 PM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 1:06 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 12:31:17 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 12:27 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 11:58 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
On 11/4/15 9:20 AM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/4/2015 8:15 AM, Keyser Söze wrote:
...has a liberal bias...

So, is the mainstream media really left-wing, or even liberal, as
those
on the right love to claim?

Tt should be noted that the real world tends to have a liberal
bias
— at
least what Ted Cruz considers a liberal bias. Take climate
change, for
example. The fact that the climate is warming because of human
activity
is a completely uncontroversial notion; it is happening, and the
vast
majority of scientists agree that it will be catastrophic for
humanity
if nothing is done very soon. That the mainstream media does not
contest
the issue of climate change, or claim that it is some giant
left-wing
conspiracy, does not prove it is liberal, but that it is
operating in
reality. Cruz does not operate in reality, and believes climate
change
(i.e. science) is a “religion.� But just because Cruz believes
this, or
his deranged father, Rafael, believes that evolution is a
communist
lie,
does not mean that evolutionary biologists are communists or that
climate scientists are religious fanatics — it means that Rafael
Cruz
and his son are delusional.

http://tinyurl.com/nmqhdxk

- - -

Yup.



How and from what sources has the "real world" been convinced that
climate change is a result of human activity? Who has declared
that
human activity being the cause is an "uncontroversial notion"?

Why, of course. Liberals and the liberal media.


Right, because nearly all the scientists who agree human activity
is a
major contributor to global warming/climate chage are card-carrying
liberals, and, of course, nearly all scientists agree.

Gotta love rec.boats, the Ben Carson-approved usenet group.

Sheesh.


Man caused climate change is far from being a "uncontroversial
notion".
There are many scientists who disagree or who acknowledge a human
influence but it is in the noise level on a signal to noise ratio
when
compared to cyclic, natural causes.

Point is, nobody really knows for sure.



What's the percentage of scientists who believe humans are the
cause of
global warming/change to scientists who don't believe humans are the
cause of global warming/change? 99.9% to 00.1%? There aren't many
non-believing scientists compared to believing scientists.

There are certainly not many willing to endanger their tenure and
their grants by saying it publicly. Most are silent on the subject.



Apparently you don't know what academic tenure is...


Oh ... geeze ... here we go again.



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

Tenure protects teachers run amok. Why is that a good thing?


Friend who is a retired teacher said there should be tenure or union. Not
both.

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.

On 11/4/15 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.



And you know this from your extensive personal experience at the
university level, eh?

On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 15:22:10 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:

On 11/4/15 3:10 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 4 Nov 2015 13:42:53 -0500, Keyser Söze wrote:



Why, because Greg doesn't know what academic tenure is, and I do?
No need for extensive research...Wiki has the simple answer:

Academic tenure protects teachers and researchers when they dissent from
prevailing opinion, openly disagree with authorities of any sort, or
spend time on unfashionable topics.

Thus, if you are a tenured academic, you are not endangering your tenure
by coming out against the prevailing thoughts on global warming.

Next?

That is a great fairy tale and it might protect incompetent or child
molesting teachers but if you are endangering federal grants or going
against the grain of the administration, you will be gone one way or
another.
They might not fire you but you will not be working on much.



And you know this from your extensive personal experience at the
university level, eh?

You only need to look at the political uniformity in the university
system to draw that conclusion.