Lately, the left has become even more unhinged than usual. This letter appeared in our local newspaper, the Chico Enterprise Record and is a fine example of that trend. It’s probably the most bizarre letter on climate I’ve ever seen, and of course, nobody in their right mind would bother responding to it. Ironically, the person writing, one Nancy L. Good of Chico, clearly doesn’t understand science herself, only rhetoric and headlines. Given her excluding viewpoint, maybe she shouldn’t be the one voting?
Here’s the letter as it appeared on chicoer.com:
The article on Page 10, June 19, about climate change, should have been on page 1. Why? So Doug LaMafia and the 52 percent of boneheads who voted for him recently would see it and read it.
Why are people still voting for a man who is ignorant concerning proven scientific evidence that we are slowly destroying our home planet by human practices? These are the same type of people who refused to believe the Earth is round and not flat. Stupid, stupid, stupid.
I propose a new voting requirement. If you aren’t smart enough to understand science you can’t vote and you can’t be an elected official. I am holding Republicans responsible for destroying my planet.
— Nancy L. Good, Chico
Wow, just wow.
Projection at it’s finest.
Here’s the article she’s upset about: https://www.chicoer.com/2018/06/19/looking-for-signs-of-global-warming-its-all-around-you/
We can all thank Seth Borenstein of the Associated Press for whipping this person into a frenzy, or as they call it these days, “triggered”.
Mark Twain said it best:
“Never argue with a fool, onlookers may not be able to tell the difference.”
Tempting! It would eliminate 90+% of all elected politicians from voting!
The problem with Ms. Goods post and the article referred to is they’re only talking 30-40 years. That is to short a period to make a difinitive statement on climate, especially world climate.
In the same spirit I’ll make the following observation:
The sun is showing signs of going into an extended period of low activity. Historically it is similar to the 1800’s with an extended period of late springs, excessive rain, heavy snow,cold winters, and bad weather in the Central and Eastern United States, and hot, dry, weather with erratic rains in the Southwest. Globally the unscientific global temperature may go up a few tenths of a degree C, but unlikely.
It’s climate change alright, but not the kind being hyped in the media and by Ms. Good.
So you need to pass a calculus test, computer modeling, statistics, etc? I’m okay with that.
Science encompasses many, many things. I’m good with geology, meteorology, botany, biology, agricultural science, animal husbandry, etc.
Amazing how the SJW crowd thinks it’s unjustified to require someone to provide identification to prove who they are in order to vote, but thinks it’s OK to bar people from voting based on their lack of “scientific knowledge” – of course, that’s the pseudo-science SHE “believes,” anyway, not even ACTUAL science.
I’ll “translate” her “rule” for her –
“If you aren’t gullible enough to accept the pseudo-science that I believe in, you can’t vote and you can’t be an elected official.”
Classic projection combined with classic hypocrisy on Ms. Good’s part.
Never argue with an idiot. They’ll just drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
Thomas Jefferson promoted that only landownership qualified a citizen to vote. He lost that argument.
Well that would rule out most Climate Scientists from voting…… 🙂
When I go to the link where the letter is, the website begs me to turn off my ad blocker, which, of course, I refuse to do — there’s a reason I have it, and I automatically click out of any websites begging me to turn it off.
But I get the drift.
The letter that would write in response would consist of three words, … actually the same word used three times in succession, mirroring the hypocrisy of Ms. Good:
Dear Ms Good, … stupid, stupid, stupid.
And I wouldn’t sign it, because that would take up too much of my time.
While all of us here could pass a general science test, NONE of us could pass her “fantasy science agenda test”.
She should be careful what she wishes for. Her perceived opponents might do better on a science test.
As a Chemical Engineering major, I took the same University level classes (English composition and literature, etc.) that the liberal arts students took. They did not take the standard chemistry classes we took, but an easier level (think Chemistry for non-majors). I think the other majors should take the real physics and chemistry classes like the rest of us. Otherwise, they don’t have enough foundation in science to decide whether something is scientifically accurate to be able to make a rational decision. Has this person, who implies that she is scientifically literate, since it’s obvious that she includes herself as worthy to vote on environmental policy, demonstrated that she has enough scientific training to meet her own criteria?
Does Borenstein realize that folks who are smarter than himself find him boring? I wonder if that runs with the name.
At the risk of being misjudged by onlookers:
“These are the same type of people who refused to believe the Earth is round and not flat.” Actually those who in the past believed the Earth was flat are throe who went along with the “expert” consensus.
It didn’t happen, at least not for something like 1300 years. A myth made up by fairytale writer Washington Irving. Still taught in classrooms though.
Hey, ANOTHER basic right the progressives would take away.
Either a) understand science, or, b) possess a photo ID card. Both are apparently a bridge too far for many.
KEEPER: Stop! What is your name?
ARTHUR: It is Arthur, King of the Britons.
KEEPER: What is your quest?
ARTHUR: To seek the Holy Grail.
KEEPER: What is the air-speed velocity of an unladen swallow?
ARTHUR: What do you mean? An African or European swallow?
KEEPER: What? I don’t know that! Auuuuuuuugh! (plunges into the abyss)
BEDEMIR: How do know so much about swallows?
ARTHUR: Well, you have to know these things when you’re a king you know.
In the good old days (up to 1950) Cambridge and Oxford and some other universities had their own MPs. Ireland still has university senators.
The College of William & Mary held a seat in the House of Burgesses of the Virginia Colony in 1693.
Now, of course, the brain boxes would vote against Trump and Brexit so thank God they don’t get the chance!
Newton was an MP for Cambridge U. His only recorded utterance during Parliamentary sessions was a request to close the window because it’s too cold LOL
On other occasion he said “I can calculate the motions of heavenly bodies but not the madness of men.” He could be thinking of MPs
Science question for Nancy:
Please explain “Exothermic oxidation reaction”, since you are so concerned about it.
I have proferred the idea here in australia that all greens and their voters should be forced to live on 100 percent renewable. Absolutely no backup. As i see it its not really coercion. Its what they want.
amendment –its what they want for other people to do
We had a similar Green demand Down Under a few years ago
Dr Clive Hamilton standing as a Green candidate opined that if the public were not prepared to vote for Green policies designed to save the planet, then maybe democracy would have to be taken away from them.
( No doubt leaving political decision making in the hands of a self- chosen elite group -of which naturally he would be one )
Happily this latter day autocratic did not win the seat he stood for and I think may have lost his deposit for not gaining enough votes
Clearly show that theme is poltical. Politicized “science” is only logical for those that made or support it.
I’d like to know what Nancy Good’s scientific qualifications are. I wonder if she could pass her own voting test. I’d like a chance to put money on it.
“of course, nobody in their right mind would bother responding to it” – except you
And does one letter represent the entire ‘Left’?
Nancy Good is a real nut case, a very common critter now days. Not much can be done about such stupidity.
First of all, what this person is describing is a “poll test”, where a prospective voter has to display some level of education in order to be allowed to vote. Perhaps she needs to read up on her history, but this was tried once, in the South, in the late 1800s and early 1900s. Until it was ruled unConstitutional. You see, though it might seem like a good idea to prevent idiots from having a say in how our government is run, in practice, such a system is far too easy to corrupt. In the South, white men (Democrats, every one of them, by the way) wrote the questions, with the obvious intent of making sure blacks (and possibly females as well) couldn’t answer them. The point is, whoever is in charge at the time gets to write the questions, and therefore has the power to determine who gets to vote and who does not. Even if they don’t consciously set out to skew the test results in favor of one party over another, the bias will still come out through subconscious effects.
But IF we’re going to enact a poll test, why should it be solely based on science? I happen to think that, if there’s any knowledge that should be considered a pre-requisite for voting rights, it’s a working knowledge of the US CONSTITUTION. After that would come Basic Arithmetic, Basics Language skills (any language), US History, Logic, then Economics, in that order. Science would come after that, tied with World History, Basic Accounting/Finance/Banking/Consumer Credit, Basic Statistics, and Basic Law (criminal and civil).
I’m pretty sure Ms. Good would fail four of the top 6.
I could go for this. However, since if you cannot follow the math, you cannot understand the science, and are just substituting faith in God for faith in Science, FIRST you have to pass a math test. Which will include statistics, differential equations and matrix algebra….without which you cannot understand statistics, and therefore know nothing of what you are talking about. When one of them shows me he understands the Laplace transforms, what they do and why they are important to DoE, then I will listen to them about science.
There is a reason I do not opine on string theory. I get lost in the math. 99.9% of people get lost in the math. And 99% of liberals get lost on the math on Climate “Science”. But they believe in it by Faith.