The Scientific Orgs Promoting AGW consensus are the same ones who promoted Eugenics, which led to the Holocaust

[PoS]

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

By the 1920s, three major efforts pushed the eugenic agenda in the United States and subsequently throughout Europe: (1) The Eugenics Research Association with Laughlin and Davenport as leaders and in affiliation with the American Association of the Advancement of Science (AAAS). (2) The American Eugenics Society founded by Laughlin, Harry Crampton, Madison Grant, and Henry Fairfield Osborn with the purpose of promoting the eugenical movement at both the scientific and popular level. (3) The Eugenics Records Office, directed by Davenport and run by Laughlin with the express purpose of providing the scientific data to support the eugenics movement.

A concerted effort of this magnitude with the expressed support of the mainstream scientific establishment (e.g., AAAS as operator of the journal Science; the American Breeders' Association, which later became the American Genetics Association; and the Carnegie Institution) had an effect throughout both the scientific and governmental establishments worldwide.

Yup, the AAAS, the same organization that NASA touts in their website regarding consensus on climate change. These very same organizations, along with others, promoted eugenics as fact, which led to forced sterilizations of blacks, and it also led the Nazis to adopt the same principles which led to the Holocaust.

What's the moral of this story? Scientists are not infallible, and proof is required to believe in what they say. The climate cult mantra of fanatical appeal to authority completely fails in this regard.

 

[Loulit01]

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yup, the AAAS, the same organization that NASA touts in their website regarding consensus on climate change. These very same organizations, along with others, promoted eugenics as fact, which led to forced sterilizations of blacks, and it also led the Nazis to adopt the same principles which led to the Holocaust.

What's the moral of this story? Scientists are not infallible, and proof is required to believe in what they say. The climate cult mantra of fanatical appeal to authority completely fails in this regard.

The AAAS was wrong in the past so it's wrong today.

 

[longview]

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yup, the AAAS, the same organization that NASA touts in their website regarding consensus on climate change. These very same organizations, along with others, promoted eugenics as fact, which led to forced sterilizations of blacks, and it also led the Nazis to adopt the same principles which led to the Holocaust.

What's the moral of this story? Scientists are not infallible, and proof is required to believe in what they say. The climate cult mantra of fanatical appeal to authority completely fails in this regard.

You forgot the Human side of the plan Planned Parenthood.
Least we forget Margaret Sanger said,

“We do not want word to go out that we want to exterminate the Negro population.”

 

[longview]

The AAAS was wrong in the past so it's wrong today.

It is likely worse that that, there is likely some empirical data that supports eugenics, while there is almost no observed data that supports
the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Selective breeding in livestock clearly does work.
U.S. Broiler Performance
In 1935 it took 98 days to raise a chicken to a market weight of 2.86 pounds.
in 2023 it took 47 days to raise a chicken to a market weight of 6.54 pounds.
Half the time and more than double the weight.

 

[bongsaway]

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yup, the AAAS, the same organization that NASA touts in their website regarding consensus on climate change. These very same organizations, along with others, promoted eugenics as fact, which led to forced sterilizations of blacks, and it also led the Nazis to adopt the same principles which led to the Holocaust.

What's the moral of this story? Scientists are not infallible, and proof is required to believe in what they say. The climate cult mantra of fanatical appeal to authority completely fails in this regard.

If nothing else, you use the way back machine very effectively. I can't wait to hear about what **** ups our founding fathers were with their thinking. All men are created equal, even our black slaves, ha ha, only kidding.

 

[Loulit01]

It is likely worse that that, there is likely some empirical data that supports eugenics, while there is almost no observed data that supports
the concept of catastrophic AGW.
Selective breeding in livestock clearly does work.
U.S. Broiler Performance
In 1935 it took 98 days to raise a chicken to a market weight of 2.86 pounds.
in 2023 it took 47 days to raise a chicken to a market weight of 6.54 pounds.
Half the time and more than double the weight.

"There is no observed data"

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

 

[longview]

"There is no observed data"

Google Scholar

scholar.google.com

Almost no observed data, it could be argued that the observed longwave absorption of greenhouse gases in a lab
is a type of observed data, but it may or may not relate to how those gases behave in the atmosphere.
The only observed data we have is from the CERES satellite instruments, and they recorded
a decrease in the downward longwave radiation as the level of greenhouse gases increased, the opposite
of the prediction.

 

[PoS]

The AAAS was wrong in the past so it's wrong today.

Strawman.

If nothing else, you use the way back machine very effectively. I can't wait to hear about what **** ups our founding fathers were with their thinking. All men are created equal, even our black slaves, ha ha, only kidding.

Why do you admire the Holocaust so much?

 

[j brown's body]

Strawman.


Why do you admire the Holocaust so much?

It's exposing your strawman argument. You're attacking the source, not the sources argument. That's the strawman logical fallacy.

 

[PoS]

It's exposing your strawman argument. You're attacking the source, not the sources argument. That's the strawman logical fallacy.

Wrong as usual. I am attacking your cult's appeal to authority argument. Your reading comprehension is very weak.

 

[j brown's body]

You forgot the Human side of the plan Planned Parenthood.
Least we forget Margaret Sanger said,

Sanger was referring to a program to provide birth control to black women and was worried that black preachers would characterize it as an effort to exterminate them. Since she wrote this to program supporter WEB Dubois, a warrior for equal rights for blacks, makes it less likely she wanted extermination.

The argument has some nuance to it though. DuBois, with his idea of a "talented 10%" seemed to believe, to some degree, in eugenics, and like many others, including Sanger, saw birth control was a way to cull the herd of losers. But for Sanger, whose own mother had about a dozen kids and died young, women's health was her top concern.

Neither Sanger nor Dubois saw the extermination of a race as a goal and never supported the government using eugenics to guide policy.

 

[j brown's body]

Wrong as usual. I am attacking your cult's appeal to authority argument. Your reading comprehension is very weak.

Suggesting that scientific orgs are wrong about AGW because they supported eugenics that led to the Holicaust makes your thread title a strawman.

 

[PoS]

Suggesting that scientific orgs are wrong about AGW because they supported eugenics that led to the Holicaust makes your thread title a strawman.

I never claimed theyre always wrong, so youre the one making a strawman. Your blind faith in them just shows you support eugenics.

 

[longview]

Sanger was referring to a program to provide birth control to black women and was worried that black preachers would characterize it as an effort to exterminate them. Since she wrote this to program supporter WEB Dubois, a warrior for equal rights for blacks, makes it less likely she wanted extermination.

The argument has some nuance to it though. DuBois, with his idea of a "talented 10%" seemed to believe, to some degree, in eugenics, and like many others, including Sanger, saw birth control was a way to cull the herd of losers. But for Sanger, whose own mother had about a dozen kids and died young, women's health was her top concern.

Neither Sanger nor Dubois saw the extermination of a race as a goal and never supported the government using eugenics to guide policy.

That is the white wash version, Sanger was a proponent of eugenics!

 

[bongsaway]

Strawman.


Why do you admire the Holocaust so much?

Why do you make such asinine statements? It sounds so childish coming from an adult. You have no idea of how I feel about the jews or the American Indians who we slaughtered by the millions. God save America from the savages!

 

[Bodecea]

U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective - PMC

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov

Yup, the AAAS, the same organization that NASA touts in their website regarding consensus on climate change. These very same organizations, along with others, promoted eugenics as fact, which led to forced sterilizations of blacks, and it also led the Nazis to adopt the same principles which led to the Holocaust.

What's the moral of this story? Scientists are not infallible, and proof is required to believe in what they say. The climate cult mantra of fanatical appeal to authority completely fails in this regard.

 

[PoS]

Why do you make such asinine statements? It sounds so childish coming from an adult. You have no idea of how I feel about the jews or the American Indians who we slaughtered by the millions. God save America from the savages!

And yet you support the same scientific org that promoted eugenics. Your true intentions are as plain as day.

You love the Holocaust too. OK, we get it.

 

[bongsaway]

And yet you support the same scientific org that promoted eugenics. Your true intentions are as plain as day.


You love the Holocaust too. OK, we get it.

Donald is that you spitting bullshit out of your mouth once again? Where do you come up with your lies? I support the same scientific org that promoted eugenics? I don't even know what org that is but I support it? Ford supported it, Lindberg supported it and it makes me wonder if you too support it since you even know about it and I don't.

We all know your true intentions, spitting out crap on a daily basis. Everyone you don't like you accuse them of the strangest things, like promoting eugenics. Tell ya' what, find just one post where I say I support any such thing. Just one.

 

[longview]

Donald is that you spitting bullshit out of your mouth once again? Where do you come up with your lies? I support the same scientific org that promoted eugenics? I don't even know what org that is but I support it? Ford supported it, Lindberg supported it and it makes me wonder if you too support it since you even know about it and I don't.

We all know your true intentions, spitting out crap on a daily basis. Everyone you don't like you accuse them of the strangest things, like promoting eugenics. Tell ya' what, find just one post where I say I support any such thing. Just one.

You are missing the point that these illustrious organizations held positions that were wrong in the past, just as their position on catastrophic climate change is also wrong.
CO2 is not the problem!

 

[bongsaway]

You are missing the point that these illustrious organizations held positions that were wrong in the past, just as their position on catastrophic climate change is also wrong.
CO2 is not the problem!

Seriously? Ok, co2 isn't the problem for the sake of your argument. Are you also claiming there is no such thing happening that we call climate change?

 

[longview]

Seriously? Ok, co2 isn't the problem for the sake of your argument. Are you also claiming there is no such thing happening that we call climate change?

No the climate is changing and it is even from human activity, but that activity is not greenhouse gas emissions.
We are warming because for perhaps centuries we dimmed the available sunlight reaching the surface, and then in the 1970’s corrected the worst of our pollution, by 1985 the skies started to brighten, letting more of the available sunlight reach the surface. The effect was to release centuries of slow natural warming, in several decades. Like slowly tightening a spring, and the releasing the accumulated energy is a very short time frame.
This is what most closely matches the observed data!
The limited role that added greenhouse gases played, was to slightly offset the warming from brightening,( yes they caused slight cooling)!

 

[Lord of Planar]

Seriously? Ok, co2 isn't the problem for the sake of your argument. Are you also claiming there is no such thing happening that we call climate change?

The problem is the focus from the agenda is all wrong, and they are chronic liars.

We need to stop the physical pollutants like soot and other aerosols.

It needs to be understood that city heat waves are not a product of global warming, but a product of the Urban Heat Island Effect. There are studies that indicate the UHIE is as high as 10 C (19 F).

Governments are not to be trusted. We have too many damn Sheeple.

 

[bongsaway]

No the climate is changing and it is even from human activity, but that activity is not greenhouse gas emissions.
We are warming because for perhaps centuries we dimmed the available sunlight reaching the surface, and then in the 1970’s corrected the worst of our pollution, by 1985 the skies started to brighten, letting more of the available sunlight reach the surface. The effect was to release centuries of slow natural warming, in several decades. Like slowly tightening a spring, and the releasing the accumulated energy is a very short time frame.
This is what most closely matches the observed data!
The limited role that added greenhouse gases played, was to slightly offset the warming from brightening,( yes they caused slight cooling)!

Are you saying because of burning wood and coal we built up a layer of pollution that blocked sunlight around the globe? If that is what you are saying are you also saying that blocked sunlight just sat there until the skies cleared enough to let it through all at once so the slow warming turned into an air fryer? If so, we would have been fried. For some reason or other with the population in the billions around the world, I think we're throwing more pollutants into the air than ever.

 

[j brown's body]

That is the white wash version, Sanger was a proponent of eugenics!

I didn't say she wasn't. I said she wasn't a proponent of eliminating the black race.

 

[j brown's body]

I never claimed theyre always wrong, so youre the one making a strawman. Your blind faith in them just shows you support eugenics.

Oh, you're saying they're right on AGW but wrong on eugenics. Thanks for the clarification.