Not the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. Not the National Socialist German Workers’ Party. Not the Khmer Rouge. Not the Islamic State. No, none of them are “the most dangerous organization in world history.” That honor, as far as Noam Chomsky is concerned, belongs to the Republican Party of the United States.
This is the kind of hysterical rhetoric that is inciting the anti-Trump riots. Democrats are behaving as if Satan himself (or Hitler, with whom, as they always do with those they hate, they’re actively likening Trump) were about to become President of the United States, and their witless ground troops are believing them.
Chomsky is serious, however: he says that the claim that the Republican Party is the most dangerous organization in world history “may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.” Because many Republicans reject the theory of global warming, they’re the most dangerous organization in world history. It isn’t even proven, and yet for Chomsky it’s the central dogma, and all who dissent from it are the summit of evil.
This ridiculous hyperbole and sky-is-falling rhetoric is why people are fed up with the political and media elites: they’re squandering their political capital and moral authority on outlandish and baseless demonizing of those who dissent from their line, and what they’re doing is increasingly obvious to the general public.
“Noam Chomsky: ‘The Republican Party Has Become the Most Dangerous Organization in World History,'” by C.J. Polychroniou, TruthOut, November 14, 2016:
…Q. Noam, the unthinkable has happened: In contrast to all forecasts, Donald Trump scored a decisive victory over Hillary Clinton, and the man that Michael Moore described as a “wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full-time sociopath” will be the next president of the U.S. In your view, what were the deciding factors that led American voters to produce the biggest upset in the history of U.S. politics?
A. Noam Chomsky
Before turning to this question, I think it is important to spend a few moments pondering just what happened on Nov. 8, a date that might turn out to be one of the most important in human history, depending on how we react.
No exaggeration.
The most important news of Nov. 8 was barely noted, a fact of some significance in itself.
On Nov. 8, the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) delivered a report at the international conference on climate change in Morocco (COP22) which was called in order to carry forward the Paris agreement of COP21. The WMO reported that the past five years were the hottest on record. It reported rising sea levels, soon to increase as a result of the unexpectedly rapid melting of polar ice, most ominously the huge Antarctic glaciers. Already, Arctic sea ice over the past five years is 28 percent below the average of the previous 29 years, not only raising sea levels, but also reducing the cooling effect of polar ice reflection of solar rays, thereby accelerating the grim effects of global warming. The WMO reported further that temperatures are approaching dangerously close to the goal established by COP21, along with other dire reports and forecasts.
Another event took place on Nov. 8, which also may turn out to be of unusual historical significance for reasons that, once again, were barely noted.
On Nov. 8, the most powerful country in world history, which will set its stamp on what comes next, had an election. The outcome placed total control of the government—executive, Congress, the Supreme Court—in the hands of the Republican Party, which has become the most dangerous organization in world history.
Apart from the last phrase, all of this is uncontroversial. The last phrase may seem outlandish, even outrageous. But is it? The facts suggest otherwise. The party is dedicated to racing as rapidly as possible to destruction of organized human life. There is no historical precedent for such a stand.…

Allan says
That was a good one. Thanks for the belly laugh.
john spielman says
I some what sorry for old man Chomsky, to live long enough to see his core beliefs flushed down the sewer of history and repudiated, his life work being but garbage.
He is but a pathetic angry disillusioned and deceived old man. I do feel sorry for him
Don McKellar says
I don’t. I’ll feel sorry for him when nobody gives him a platform to spew his imaginary garbage any more.
Noah T says
Press TV the official propaganda TV of The Islamic Republic of Iran gives Chomsky a platform.
Marty says
Well said.
Chomsky is an anti semite & a bogus intellectual.
His far left, anti Western garbage is only given credence because
of his linguistic theories. Indeed, these are the sole basis of his
claims to being an intellectual.
These theories have been comprehensively disproved, which
removes his claim to be other than an unpleasant loudmouth.
A Harris USA says
John, you left out one point.. Maybe it is time for him to swallow the Koo-aide, and leave this dangerous party of Republicans, and wised up Americans, who are sick to death of globalist Islamic sick-os, trying to take over our freedoms, and our lives!!!
Jack Holan says
A very sweet, quick and powerful reality check for “Jewish” Anti-Semite Chomsky is to buy a ticket on Saudi Airlines (if they will sell it to him) from NYC to Riyadh to Mecca and test the waters to be allowed even as Disavowed Jew to be permitted to enter the House of Saud.
Louis says
WHEN IS CHOMSKY GOING to DIE ,DIE..
Jack Holan says
The number of years that lay ahead of him are less than those that have passed behind him. He and Soros can get together and plot their designs for Our People but two barriers exist that will be a barrier to their success, G-d and the finite term of their lives.
George says
Excellent
mortimer says
Yes… the Republicans are the most determined advocates of freedom in the world…something Chomsky despises.
Chomsky wants a government like that of North Korea. All HAIL President-for-life Kim Jong Chomsky!
JawsV says
Who is this pathetic old geezer?
miriamrove says
He is some kind of a scholar. But in reality he is the most dredged PC Jew! m
J's Witnesses says
Referring to his Jewish faith, without some basis, seems somewhat Islamic. I am not defending the man, only his faith.
mortimer says
What? Chomsky is Jewish now? You mean JINO (Jewish in name only). Chomsky DESPISES Israel.
His kind leave Jews vulnerable for the next genocide. He’s a confused chatterbox.
Angel says
I believe they call his kind dinosaurs. One day they disappeared, and no one knows why or how. He’s one of their remote descendants, but thankfully soon extinct. This particular character has spent his life coming up with the most asinine theories, which unfortunately a lot of not too bright individuals have accepted without challenging them as they should have, but with this last statement he actually managed to put a final nail in his own coffin. Whatever extremely thin credibility he may have had among a few people at one point has now evaporated. Well done.
Shmooviyet says
Lol– dinosaurs.
This crazy coot is positively worshipped by my insane leftist BIL, who also believes Repubs are rushing the globe to utter destruction.We used to get a Chomsky primer on Thanksgiving.
le mouron rouge says
Angel says, “I believe they call his kind dinosaurs. One day they disappeared, and no one knows why or how. He’s one of their remote descendants, but thankfully soon extinct.”
***********
Nice thought, however, the ideology that he and people like him espouse lives on.
These are some of the people who still rule from the grave, their ideology is as strong and vibrant today as it was when they actually walked the planet.
Georg Hegel (1770-1831), Luigi Taparelli (1793-1862), Karl Marx (1818-1883), Friedrich Engels (1820-1895), Helena Blavatsky (1831-1891), Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900), Cecil Rhodes (1853-1902), John Dewey (1859-1952), Alice Bailey (1880-1949), Pierre Teilhard de Chardin (1881-1955), Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937), Saul Alinsky (1909-1972), Robert Mueller (1923-2010)
The “left” in this recent Presidential Election, especially the MSM, have clearly shown that the ideology of the above names is alive and well. There will always be people like Noam Chomsky, they aren’t going away.
Consider the education system in America today, it is ripe for producing people like Mr. Chomsky.
“The battle for mankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom. The classroom must and will become the arena of conflict between…the rotting corpse of Christianity and the new faith of humanism.”
– John Dewey
Minstrel says
So very well posted. Well done. And thank you.
Phil Copson says
How does Cecil Rhodes get into that list ? Serious question – any replies appreciated. Thanks.
le mouron rouge says
Phil Copson says, “How does Cecil Rhodes get into that list ? Serious question – any replies appreciated. Thanks.”
**********
Allow Cecil Rhodes to speak for himself:
“Why should we not form a secret society with but one object, the furtherance of the British Empire and the bringing of the whole world under British rule, for the recovery of the United States, for making the Anglo Saxon race but one Empire? What a dream, but yet it is probable; it is possible.”
– Cecil Rhodes
Hence, the Rhodes Scholarship, the dream of getting the best and the brightest minds and shaping and molding them into a “power elite” that will rule the world.
Phil Copson says
Thanks for the quote from Mr Rhodes. However, it still leaves me where I was – other than believing that the world would be better if run according to his ideas, he has nothing in common with the rest of them.
Whatever people may now think of the British Empire, it isn’t best-known for having been run in accordance with the ideas of Karl Marx or Saul Alinsky.
I doubt that his ideas on British Imperialism have any power from beyond the grave at all, other than giving lefties something to revile.
Which is a great pity frankly, because given a choice between living in a world given over Islamism, run as a Marxist labour camp, or as an extension of the British Empire, I know which I’d plump for…..
The recent protests in Oxford demanding that his statue should be removed were a disgrace, and the attitude of the college was contemptible; were all the SJWs protesting against all the corruption, slavery and slaughter that has taken place across Africa since and continues to this day ? No – that would be “racist” ! And had the principal instigator – an arrogant Zimbabwean – got a single word to say against his own President – the geriatric kleptomaniac mass-murderer Robert Mugabe ? Of course not – might end up with his eye-balls gouged out and a flaming petrol-soaked tyre round his neck when he gets back to Harare….. But they were all happy to take Rhodes’ money and prance about showing how “concerned” and “anti-racist” they were in a nice safe prosperous environment.
A couple of slightly provocative questions for the historians amongst you……
On a slightly different subject; bringing the British Empire to an end was part of the price that America exacted for it’s assistance in the liberation of Europe. To what extent therefore can America be held responsible for the slaughter of millions of Hindus and Muslims that followed the enforced British withdrawal from the Raj, against the advice that India simply was not ready for partition and that this would inevitably happen ?
And anyone care to comment on the following ? America’s entry into the Second World War is always presented as “having come into the war”. To me, the Japanese attack must surely have made many in the US Government less willing, not more willing, to become involved in a European war when it now had a Pacific war to fight ?
Would America have joined the European war at all had Hitler not declared war on the USA ?
Look forward to any comments.
quota raven says
To Phil Copson – What an astute, thought-provoking and articulate comment, Phil. Thank you for it. For me, it brought to mind the following:
I knew a guy who got his degree in Russian at Yale, where he also studied Kant – and Noam Chomsky- amongst others, visited Russia with the Yale Russian Chorus, was in Skull and Bones (a secret society there, thought by some to wield enormous political power in the USA, a club that a number of US presidents have belonged to) and then got a Rhodes fellowship and was further indoctrinated in Marxian political thought at Oxford. After his year at Oxford, he got a law degree at Harvard, and then a job heading up the Washington, DC, branch of the ACLU and was subsequently to be found in a president’s cabinet, in charge of civil rights!
Make of it what you will, there are so many indoctrination elements in play here that one can sense fast-track scripting if one isn’t careful to wear one’s tinfoil hat!)))
Cheers!
quota raven.
gravenimage says
To Phil Copson–I don’t believe that the US fighting Fascism in Europe was a bad thing at all–just the opposite. And yes, I do believe, despite our reluctance, that we soon would have entered in support of Britain–Churchill always thought we would.
My mother worked for the British Ministry of Information as a young woman during the war–when they heard that the US had entered the war, they all cheered, and broke out a bottle of wine they had been saving for a special occasion. (My mother was too young to drink, but they made an exception).
gravenimage says
And Phil, I do very much a agree with you that the results of the end of the British Empire was a mixed bag in many cases, and an unmitigated disaster in others.
The point where we disagree is about the role of the US–it was not America that broke up the British Empire. There was pressure both from the nations in the empire and from within Britain herself. The US may, in some cases, have thought that returning home rule to the nations of the empire was a good idea, but they were *hardly* the main motive force for this happening.
Allan says
He’s a linguist aka “the father of modern linguistics” and, since the 1950’s, a leading figure in generative grammar. He’s basically just a communist, though, in terms of his political ideals.
gravenimage says
So true.
Larry says
Chomsky has never yet encountered a mass murdering totalitarian regime he didn’t like and publicly support.
gravenimage says
Also true.
Louis says
He is a scholar, I don’t know if he is still there but he use to be at MIT. As of 3yrs ago. My son use to teach there but left for better job. So I don’t know.
Rev g says
You notice that climate change adherents (no longer global warming) always have odd numbers to validate their claims?
The last 5 years versus the previous 29, not 30, nor 50, not 100, but cherry-picked data points to fit their allegations.
Ian says
This is the problem with this site. As much as I like Roberts perspective on Islam, the comment section is full of religious conspiracy nuts.
Rev g says
Religion has nothing to do with this. It seems your not being able to sell your conspiracy theory is what troubles you.
Religion does not cloud my mind from understanding science.
What is your excuse?
gravenimage says
Ian, I just think Rev g means that much climate change data is cherry-picked–one need not be particularly religious to have noticed that.
For instance, here is Mark Steyn on the subject, whom I have never noticed speaking about religion at all (save for the threat of Islam, which is a different matter):
http://www.steynonline.com/6555/michael-e-mann-repudiates-his-own-hockey-stick
P2 says
The US has the cleanest coal burning technology in THE WORLD, and China opens dirty coal burning plants week after week. So what do these loons want to shut down? Why US plants!
Angemon says
Those morons say that Trump is literally Hitler:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_9Faxz1s5g
Anyway, I wish these leftist morons stopped driving the price of salt down. Won’t they think of brown-skinned salt miners in third-world countries – how are they supposed to feed their families if white, spoiled brats in first-world countries keep giving it for free?
Shmooviyet says
They LOVE that word “literally” lolol
David E Munson says
This man is truly disulional. Left panic of extreme. Not happy loosing control of USA.
J-pal says
…it is hard to understand “The Democrats” in America – obviously “they lost” the election. They have been in power for such a long time in the western world, and NOW they complain about The Republican Party for the “stance” on Environmental issues…and, Mr. Trump hasn’t started his work yet… Is the world only Mr. Trump? How come the world is so polluted under the rule of the democrats? The pollution of the world began during the Industrial Revolution… The main source of this pollution comes from crude oil! And that oil brought Mr. Chomsky to “power”…he is one of the many million people in the World who participated in this crime of polluting the Creation!!!
Mortimer Post says
Numb Chumpsky: INSANE self-hating Jew, America-hater and all-around lunatic!
Stan Lee says
The Democrats lost far more than they’ll admit. They were rejected ! Their so-called “power was lost, of all the states, there are five (that’s right 5) states in which the Democrats have a Governor and State Congress & House majorities.
Chomsky has been around for a long time, espousing Communism under its P.C. title, “Socialism.” Ivy League professors and name droppers like to quote his writings, but it looks like America has turned a corner and left Chomsky and his ilk behind.
JIMJFOX says
Chomsky has always been an intellectual imbecile. Sooner he dies, the better.
Shmooviyet says
Don’t forget the Supermoon two nights ago, Noam! It was no-o coincidence…
quota raven says
They used to call it global cooling in the 70s or 80s, then when that failed to pan out, turned without a backward glance to address and extol global warming. When global cooling failed to produce worldwide starvation due to a shorter growing season, and then global warming couldn’t be supported as an event, those observant of the religion of climate and mother earth (not so different from ancient pagan religions) came up with the much more serviceable “man-made global climate change” and immediately set about fashioning computer models to support their doomsday predictive agenda.
These models, interestingly and predictably, based any climate change on CO2, a punitive and succulent global tax opportunity for the U.N. and elites, and failed to factor in the effects of the sun on climate change (Mother Nature’s climate change, the kind that has been around and syudied and measured for centuries),..the normal cycles of sunspots, no sunspots, sun’s proximity to earth, etc. Now, the “man-made” has now all but disappeared and is taken for granted more or less as a given.
For a lot more about opposing scientific views on man-made global climate change, google Lord Monkton. I think that’s his name, anyway. I haven’t revisited him in about 15 years.He is featured in a terrific dvd on the subject.
Meanwhile, Noam Chomsky, you ancient academic fart, give me a break!
Cheers!
quota raven
gravenimage says
All true, Quota–“Climate Change” is so vague that it can fit any drought, heavy storm, hurricane, etc.
We tend to have late Indian Summers here in California, and often get our warmest weather not in the Summer months, but in early Autumn. Like clockwork every year for the past decade I can count on running into some hysteric claiming that it must be “Climate Change” responsible for our having warm weather in October–even though this is virtually the norm here.
Peggy says
All true, Quota–“Climate Change” is so vague that it can fit any drought, heavy storm, hurricane,
=========================
And that’s exactly what climate is supposed to do, CHANGE.
They call us climate deniers and climate sceptics. I don’t deny that climate is always changing and I am sceptical about their conclusions.
vlparker says
It’s been changing since the beginning of time. A thousand years ago Greenland was green. That’s how It got its name. Imagine that.
Earlier this year Obama did a photo op in Alaska on a shrinking glacier. According to the dems that glacier was shrinking due to man made global warming. That was during the Medieval Warm Period. I wonder which human activity caused that episode of global warming.
Rev g says
I thought Greenland was so named as a lure, not a descriptor.
Laura says
To Rev G – you are correct – just as “Iceland” was named. The two are complete opposites of their names. 🙂
linnte says
As an ex Earth mama Druid Pagan, I agree with your naming the man-made climate change title as Pagan. Maybe I have always been different though, because the “panic” that climate change has given people never scored at the top of my list as things to fear. And anyone with any common sense knows for a fact earths climate CHANGES. hahahahahah! It’s supposed to happen. Like skin cells sloughing, it is a renewal. And God made it that way.
So glad to know a fellow Oregonian who is like me.
Angemon says
linnte posted:
“ And anyone with any common sense knows for a fact earths climate CHANGES. hahahahahah! It’s supposed to happen. ”
Indeed. That’s why people like Al Gore need to label their critics as “climate change deniers” – the so-called “climate change deniers” usually don’t deny that climate change happens, they just disagree on the causes. This is a pattern I’ve see repeated to exhaustion. “Person so and so is a climate changer denier” – then I look up what person so and so says and it turns out that the “climate change denier” only disagrees that Man is the single, only entity responsible for climate change. One would think that the scientific community would welcome a little scepticism, but that’s sadly not the case – there’s an official party line and those who don’t toe it may find themselves out of a job.
quota raven says
To Angemon, re: “…and those who don’t toe it may find themselves out of a job…”
Or worse….
Cheers!
quota raven
linnte says
You hit it Angemon. Really it’s no different than talking about Islam as a danger. If we speak out we are demonized. This is what Noam Chomsky and Saul Alinskys Marxist writings do to people’s heads. News media also add to the propaganda. Also you’re right in thinking Science would normally love to be challenged but even Scientists are PC’d into rejecting any opposition. What a weird time we are living in!
common sense says
Did they get the proper permissions to exhume this guy?
I bet G Soros’s hand is up his behind in attempt to re-animate the old world construct of spreading misery.
We have Obama and good ole Hussein has this guy beat hands down!
gravenimage says
Noam Chomsky: “The Republican Party has become the most dangerous organization in world history”
…………………………..
Well, that’s just retarded.
But it is par for the course for the ugly Noam Chomsky–here he is last year, long before the Trump win, claiming that “world opinion regards the US as the greatest threat to peace by a large margin”.
And why would that be? Because he claims that Jihadi terror grew from “a small tribal area in Afghanistan to virtually the whole world” because of the US.
Firstly, it was *hardly* true that Jihad terror was restricted to a remote part of Afghanistan pre-9/11. Remember the attack on the USS Cole? The bombing of the American embassies in Africa? The bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon? The Achille Lauro? The endless Jihad war against Israel?
Moreover, al-Qaeda hardly stuck to the caves of Afghanistan–remember 9/11 itself?
But even more to the point is this–how would it be possible for us “filthy Infidels” to spread al-Qaeda terrorism around the Muslim world if this were not already an Islamic creed?
But Noam Chomsky does not care–according to him, all evil in the world is the fault of the United States:
http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/33888-horror-beyond-description-noam-chomsky-on-the-latest-phase-of-the-war-on-terror
What is his solution? “Negotiating” with *ISIS*. Good luck with that…
Ultimately, he makes the claim–so common from the Left–that any resistance to Jihad terror is the cause of Jihad terror–with the unspoken corollary that if only we roll over for Jihad terror, that it will end…
Jack Diamond says
Whatever kind of linguist he may be, he is a political crackpot and intellectual thug of the first order, beloved by the Left and quoted incessantly as if he were the last word. He loves the totalitarians of the third world. He has said the United States is the moral equivalent to Nazi Germany (and that U.S. had an alliance with Nazi Germany). Everything bad in this world continues to be the fault of the USA and if only it would disappear (along with Israel) it would be the Golden Age. That such a “wretched, ignorant, dangerous part-time clown and full-time sociopath” would be their intellectual hero says so much about his acolytes.
JIMJFOX says
Brilliant. True. Factual.
Nim Chimpsky is a supreme plonker.
gravenimage says
+1, Jack.
Angemon says
gravenimage posted:
“Firstly, it was *hardly* true that Jihad terror was restricted to a remote part of Afghanistan pre-9/11. Remember the attack on the USS Cole? The bombing of the American embassies in Africa? The bombing of the US Marine barracks in Lebanon? The Achille Lauro? The endless Jihad war against Israel?”
Adults certainly, but whiny college-aged millennials who grew up without developing an inquiring mind? I doubt it.
gravenimage says
Sadly true, Angemon.
Kaos says
NASA reported last week that the Antarctic ice has risen to a new record I believe. CO2 “is plant food” for heaven sakes! CO2 is around 400 ppm at present and if we get to 200 ppm, “we all die!!” The plant life on earth can not live with only 200 ppm. We should be celebrating CO2! REAL scientists claim that the over all world temperature has been declining for the last 18 years. It’s called the “The Maunder Effect”, which is the sun spot activity from the sun. The sun spot activity has been declining for years now. We are entering a mini ice age! Wasn’t it twenty years ago they were screaming about an ice age? Now it’s global warming, oops, make that global climate change. Seems they can’t agree on which “agenda” to use. Well, if this one doesn’t stick then try another. It has been proven that the “climate changers” faked data to support their BS theory and libtards/ democrats can’t or won’t read true science because they won’t be able to fleece our pockets. If one takes a half an hour to research some of this stuff they would find credible science that proves we are cooling, not warming. They cherry pick certain areas and generalize that it counts for the whole world. You can put the facts in front of these morons and if it doesn’t fit their “mind think” then you are a denier. Again, proof that liberalism is a mental disorder. We are now experiencing the full wave of liberalism from around the world that started back in the ’60’s. Thank God, Trump at least believes this “sky is falling” for what it is- A HOAX!!!
Pong says
Some years ago I was listening to debate on Israel and Palestine. Prof. Dershovic was pro-Israel and Chomsky was pro-palestine.
Chomsky is difficult to debate. You have to give it to him, he knows a lot. I listen to his political lectures before and one of his strong points is that when he makes a statement, or expresses opinion, he invites people to look it up. It adds credibility to his statements. Of cause, very few people do.
During the debate, prof. Dershovic referred to the maps, which were worked out following the Camp David accord. Chomsky insisted that those maps didn’t exist and invited the audience to look it up. The very first time I did. It took me about 10 seconds to find those maps. This man has no credibility. He is a tipical product of leftists ideology. Like communists and moslems, he would lie to advance his views.
gravenimage says
True, Pong–Chomsky counts on others being ignorant, and just accepting his bullsh*t.
Mockingjay says
Noam Chomsky is known to be a liar.
Look at this:
http://www.paulbogdanor.com/200chomskylies.pdf
gravenimage says
Excellent resource, Mockingjay–thank you. Chomsky’s fawning apologia for Stalinism is especially egregious, as is his falling all over the “Palestinians”.
CrankyWW says
The dumbass is strong with this one.
gravenimage says
Now *that* is hilarious, CrankyWW.
Don McKellar says
I demand of all these idiots that they answer the question: If you believe so much in man-made global warming, then WHAT THE IN THE HELL are you doing to stop China and India, the world’s two leading sources of so-called “greenhouse gases” ??? WELL?
Peggy says
Now, now, don’t be a racist. It’s us white folk who have to be punished in order to make the world acceptable.
Wellington says
Oh yeah, this is a pathetic old fool (even worse than Bernie Sanders to be sure), but what is here demonstrated yet again is that high intelligence of the IQ variety, which Chomsky definitely has, is of no account if there is an absence of common sense and moral intelligence.
I have dealt with people like Chomsky throughout my academic life, people, like him, who had PhDs and other advanced degrees. By end of said life (I mean here of course retired and not dead), I had come to the conclusion that no amount of education can reverse the kind of foolishness that exists if a dearth of common sense and moral intelligence, accompanied by some false ideological belief, examples being Islam, Marxism, Nazism and modern Western leftism, are present. With Chomsky, they are present in HUGE amounts.
I’ll put it another way, a terse way: Chomsky’s life has been a waste of life. No doubt.
quota raven says
To Wellington – I’m a “retired” faculty wife, and I agree with everything you say. I remember in the 70s when Noam was the bell of the ball, intellectually, especially amongst the more snooty academics. I used to wonder why a professor of linguistics carried such weight. I also wondered why such a mind produced such convoluted prose!)))))
The more Noam expanded his intellectual horizons, the less common sense was even glimpsed in his writings, and the more I began to see him as a commie pinko and an America hater. In spite of the fact that a very old Harvard grad friend of mine whom I always regarded as truly brilliant practically deified Chomsky. My friend, a now-retired investment banker, wrote Noam a letter about something, and when he received a reply, he nearly swooned with immoderate pleasure.
But I can’t help it. I think he’s an old lefty gas-bag. Needless to say, I didn’t get on anybody’s A List when I would voice these opinions at faculty dinner parties, but I just think the whole adoring thing was and is over the top pretentious.
Cheers!
quota raven
quota raven says
Eek! Please make that “belle” of the ball! qr
gravenimage says
No worries–I knew it was just a typo. 🙂
gravenimage says
I also wondered why such a mind produced such convoluted prose!
…………………………..
Quota, this is very much the case with a certain type of academic, where clear, pity prose and a strong, rational argument are eschewed in favor of the “baffle ’em with bullsh*t” approach–something I always abhorred, even when I was a student.
gravenimage says
That would be “pithy prose”…
Voytek Gagalka says
Noam Chomsky: The most dangerous intellectual in world history (right after Immanuel Kant), soon to be extinct however.
Wellington says
Pray tell, why Kant? Would be most interested in your response.
I for one appreciate at least one matter Kant brilliantly observed, to wit, that existence is not necessarily a category of an idea, thus destroying all intellectual proofs for the existence of God and throwing all religion back on faith alone, as Kierkegaard only too fully realized.
Your turn if you care to respond.
gravenimage says
Wellington, I think it likely that Voytek cited Kant because of his concept of “Pure Reason”–the idea that one could be rational “independently of all experience”.
In other words, that reason has nothing to do with reality, but is just an amorphous, self-referential concept. Kant rejected Empiricism, and relied instead on intuition–clearly not a firm basis of analysis, especially given how poor and subjective many people’s sense of intuition is. Of course, generally when people have good intuition, it is because they are referring to prior experience.
The idea that one need not base one’s conclusions on reality in the external world, but can just make them up as one goes along–which is the end result of Kant’s ideas, even if this was not his initial intention–is rife in the academic world today, and idiots like Noam Chomsky are very much examples of this world view.
Wellington says
Ah, things in themselves as opposed to things as perceived. Is this the crux of it, gravenimage? If so, Kant had a point, I would argue, though I still incline to Hume’s all consuming skepticism, something that Kant was mortified by and for which reason, at least in part, he developed his Moral Argument for the existence of God after destroying (brilliantly as I have said so before) all the intellectual arguments for the existence of a higher power——-based on his premise that existence is not necessarily a category of an idea.
Really, I would be most interested in another comment by you here. I would proffer in closing that no one really knows anything for certain. Like Hume it is imperative, I think (not meant exactly in Descartes’ way), that we rely upon probabilities, but even the existence of probabilities is itself demonstrative of the mystery of existence which religiously inclined people answer with———–religion. But I am not religious in the least, as you know, and while not being able to figure out why there is anything rather than nothing doesn’t really bother me anymore (though once it did), it doesn’t translate into apathy on this matter. I’m “merely” intrigued as of late and nothing more.
Well, I have already gone on too long but I know this much: No one knows if a higher power, some directing intelligence, exists or not. If we could know, religion would be irrelevant. Fascinating to me how so many are religious with so little knowledge, but I digress.
As ever I remain highly respectful of your intellect and specifically for your capacity to attempt objective reasoning as far as it is in man’s ability to do so. Good-bye for now, my friend. How I would like to share a pitcher of beer (or maybe four) with you some day, but I digress again..
gravenimage says
Thank you so much for the reply, Wellington.
You wrote:
Really, I would be most interested in another comment by you here. I would proffer in closing that no one really knows anything for certain. Like Hume it is imperative, I think (not meant exactly in Descartes’ way), that we rely upon probabilities, but even the existence of probabilities is itself demonstrative of the mystery of existence
…………………………
Wellington, I think there really are a lot of things that humans *can* know, despite our fallibility–although I agree that faith is not one of them.
I am very much an Aristotlian in that regard–our senses and experiences do provide us, in most cases, with a firm sense of reality.
Of course, we have to then interpret that evidence of our senses for meaning–and this is further complicated, of course, by the existence of those who reject or evade such evidence.
More:
As ever I remain highly respectful of your intellect and specifically for your capacity to attempt objective reasoning as far as it is in man’s ability to do so. Good-bye for now, my friend. How I would like to share a pitcher of beer (or maybe four) with you some day, but I digress again..
…………………………
Thank you so much, Wellington–I feel the same. I don’t drink much, but I would gladly join you for that pitcher of beer! One day I hope we get the chance to do just that.
quota raven says
To Voytek Gagalka – who observes, “Noam Chomsky:The most dangerous intellectual in world history (right after Immanuel Kant),.,.”
Oh, yeah! Kant – that would be the Kant of the “categorical imperative”, non? I think that expression is fascinating, pungent with meaning, oozing totalitarianism! Love to you, Voytek, and complete agreement!
Cheers!
quota raven
gravenimage says
Ah, Quota–I had forgotten about Kan’ts “Categorical Imperative”–it’s been a while since I’ve read his work.
By this, Kant rejected the idea that one could make moral judgments against others.
In other words, were one a true Kantian (which no one is or could be, but that is another issue), then one would not be able to make a moral judgment against Islam. Even such horrors as pedophilia, sex slavery, and genocide could not be condemned, because that would be a “subjective” moral judgment.
We see the end results of *this* moral idiocy all around us–including with those unwilling to criticize Islam.
He posited instead of an ethical moral system a deontological one–one based on obeying rules.
Since there is no ethical basis for these rules, though, then adhering to, say, the rules of Islam or of the Khmer Rouge would be equally valid to adhering to the rules of Christianity or any other system.
The examples he himself provided were fairly conventional in their morality–but with no absolute basis for such morals, he opened up either an amoral approach, or one of adhering to the rules of just about anything.
Whether this was Kant’s intent or not, we all know where *this* leads–and it is not pretty.
gravenimage says
Kant’s
quota raven says
To Gravenimage – It’s been a long time since I read Kant, too, but, while I only dropped a name and concept, you’ve done an elegant job of explaining the categorical imperative! Yes, we can all see where espousal of a relativist approach to truth and reality has brought us. and this was made stylishly applicable to modern ethics, I think, by Kant’s categorical imperative, Thank you, Graven, for generously sharing with us your seemingly boundless intellect.
Cheers!
quota raven
linnte says
Graven continuously amazes me!
gravenimage says
Thank you so much, Quota and Linnte!
And Quota, may I ask what your husband’s field is?
quota raven says
Graven – It was Italian literature – 18th Century was his concentration, and he wrote his PhD thesis about Alessandro Verri. We lived with our baby son in Milan for a year on a Fulbright, while he did his research. But we divorced in 1973. and he left the halls of academe long ago, and he died about ten years ago.
Cheers!
quota raven
gravenimage says
Fascinating, Quota. I hope you had a great time in Milan.
A small personal point–I was once graphics editor for an arts magazine in San Francisco with a coffee and cafe theme. One of our antecedents was Alessandro Verri’s early magazine, Il Caffè.
quota raven says
OMG, Graven – I haven’t heard a mention of Il Caffe since my old academic hubby’s dissertation (he got the PhD from Columbia U)!!!! I can’t believe it! I have always thought Alessandro V a very obscure literary figure and, let’s face it, he IS.
I’m always blown away by the breadth of your intellect, but THIS TAKES THE CAKE!!!
Yes, we had a great time in Milan. Lived in an area near Piazza Napoli, Via Moise Loria 58 (!), where the local shopkeepers loved me for speaking Italian but always called me “la sposina – The newlywed – or Senora Tedesco! – Mrs German! LOL. My son took his first steps and had his first birthday in Milan. I love Milan, an under-appreciated city in my view, and simply adore Italians.
I’d like to join you and Wellington for that pitcher of beer! Or four! Wonder whether he has heard of Alessandro V or Il Caffe! In any case, I’m sure we could find many things that would lead to a spirited conversation. Love ya, Graven!
Cheers!
quota raven
quota raven says
Make that “Senora Tedesca”!)))))
I remain blown away, Graven! Cheers -qr
q says
gravenimage = You wrote this response with a reassuring link embedded in answer to my question about the credibility of the stats indicating that 51% of muslims living in the USA approve implementation of sharia law in the USA who’d be enthusiastic about the implementation and enforcement of sharia law in USA or Franc or Italy or Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, Hungary, Australia, uk, Phillipines,kenya, Thailand…Nigeria…ad planet infinitum…You said[:
……………..
Hi, Quota. This is indeed backed up with stats. 51% of Muslims in America admit they want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law. The actual number is probably much higher, since many must realize that this would not be popular with Americans. But even 51% is a majority, and is *deeply* disturbing.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around-the-world/
Certainly worrying. Biting my fingernails to see how Trump ends up addressing this massive problem. The trend is chilling, and the numbers are distinctively alarming.
Cheers!
quota raven
Turkey or the UK or Norway or let’s face it, anywhere in the world that they construct mosques or muslim community centers, considered “centers of Muslim nations” These are usually impressive, buildings with massive and challenging architecture that overwhelms and, indeed, domination through massiveness a large part of area and the sky., giving a sense of power and victory. and offering dramatic structural touches that embody a dark and ominous ambiance, threatening-by domination even in a building in area of more buildings more conventional edifices.
r modest buildings surrounding the traditionally built neighborhood’
Here’s your response, greatly apreciated;.
…………..
Hi, Quota. This is indeed backed up with stats. 51% of Muslims in America admit they want to see the imposition of Shari’ah law. The actual number is probably much higher, since many must realize that this would not be popular with Americans. But even 51% is a majority, and is *deeply* disturbing.
http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2016/07/22/muslims-and-islam-key-findings-in-the-u-s-and-around2
Cheers!
quota raven
V of builtin agressive superiooooorit
.
Your response and link were enlightening,k and I agree that mubers
,
.l..you name itl
gravenimage says
Hi, Quota. I wrote a paper when I was at Berkeley on the Quadroni of St. Charles cycle that is displayed every year during November in the nave of the Milan Cathedral. I would love to go some time!
I would love to continue this exchange, but I think I’m getting a bit too off-topic. Thanks!
Just one final question–why were you called “Senora Tedesca”? Are you German?
I speak a bit of German, but my grammar is terribly rusty at this point.
quota raven says
Graven – re “I would love to continue this exchange, but I think I’m getting a bit too off-topic.”
Agreed. But I have to add this: the cathedral at Milan is enormous and architecturally amazing. Once my husband tried to get a picture of me with the baby in arms, in front of the “duomo” (the cathedral). He kept moving farther and farther back, away from me, so as to include more of the front of the cathedral. Ultimately, the picture he got was of me and the bambino with a CROWD of Italian young men behind me, also in front of the duomo and facing the camera, giving me “kiss, kiss” gestures and thumbs up! It’s the funniest picture I ever saw and makes me laugh out loud even today.
As to Senora Tedesca – I got a D in German in college due to laziness, but I can still speak and understand bits and pieces. I am 14th generation American,according to the family tree, but I think because I spoke Italian, the shopkeepers just assumed I was European; I never met or saw any other Americans in the neighborhood.End o OT. xo))))
Cheers!
quota raven
gravenimage says
🙂
Wellington says
Very worthwhile reading the back and forth between you and gravenimage, quota raven. You’re both very impressive people, of that I have no doubt. I had not heard of Alessandro Verri but then there is much I do not know. My ignorance used to bother me but now I just pop another cold one and watch some more football or an old movie (just watched the Houston/Louisville game last night).
Most of my readings have been in physical anthropology and in ancient, medieval, English and American history, in addition to law. I came to enjoy reading philosophy as well as studying religion by way of my historical interest because one can’t really understand the past of a people if disciplines like philosophy and religion are ignored. I would add here that I admire much of Kant’s thought but his categorical imperative, which on first reading sounds enlightened does, after further examination, suffer from something very commonly found with intellectuals (and Kant was surely a first-rate intellectual) and that is a dearth of common sense. As the great English historian, Paul Johnson, has noted, no group of people have done more harm to society than the intellectuals.
Well, that’s enough for now. Always look forward to your posts here at JW. Take care, my friend. And you, gravenimage and me chewing things over while enjoying a fine libation is something that brings a smile to my face.
Cheers!
Wellington
quota raven says
Wellington – Thank you for your kind words! And, regarding intellectuals, “As the great English historian, Paul Johnson, has noted, no group of people have done more harm to society than the intellectuals.” …
Back when I was a piker, I thought intellectuals were really cool, but now that I’m an old bag, I find myself entertaining the possibility that they might in some cases also be stupid!)))
Cheers!
quota raven
Phil Copson says
An intellectual is just someone who talks in theories because they have no grasp of reality.
An activist is someone who knows exactly what they think as soon as intellectual writes it down for them.
Politicians are people who know how to run the world but can’t wire a plug.
citycat says
@ Wellington
it’s not faith alone.
It’s brotherhood, sisterhood, cooperation, self defence, order, group force, morals, holiness, trust, music, etc
The God bit is ignored as a reality except by a few.
God is like a technique to create order. Once order is the God can be archived.
Take Allah away from Islam and Islam can’t work.
quota raven says
To Citycat – Even so, it is an error to perceive Islam simply as a religion. It is a theocracy.
For Christians or Westerners, a deadly one, religious aspects notwithstanding.
Cheers!
quota raven
Tassie R says
Nay, he is hardly the most dangerous intellectual, I think, – rather the most senile…
Guest says
“The Republican Party has become the most dangerous organization in world history”
Thank you
Wellington says
Your “thank you” could be understood in dramatically different ways. Which way did you mean it?
gravenimage says
Sarcasm, or agreement?
Guest says
Sarcasm
I am a republican. People call us ‘dangerous’ because we are honest, because we fight to protect what’s ours, because we want our fellow Americans to stand without the Goverment holding their hands, because we accept that this is a cold cruel world and we are willing to become strong enough to overcome it.
gravenimage says
Thank you for the clarification, Guest!
I don’t think the world is intrinsically cold and cruel–but it certainly can be, and there are always those–like Muslims–poised to take advantage of the weak if no one is there to protect them.
Mockingjay says
Leftist people revere this guy as a GOD.
I think that as such, he has done a lot of damage, f.e. in shaping (negative) opinions toward Israel (and positive ones toward the “palestinians”).
It was interesting to read the exchange Sam Harris tried to have with this man in 2015, which Sam Harris called afterwards “an unpleasant and fruitless encounter”.
– As this was between two men who actually share a lot of “leftist” ideas, it is all the more sobering to ascertain that not even THEN any decency and honest discussion of viewpoints can be expected from this man who clearly doesn’t tolerate to be questioned.
Darryl Kerney says
Chomsky and Bernie Sanders, stranded on a desert isle,
imagine it ……..
quota raven says
To Darryl Kerney – LOL! What a picture! I’ll bet neither one knows how to build a fire or catch a fish!
Cheers!
quota raven
Jack Diamond says
Gilligan and The Professor, circa 2016. Both killed by falling coconuts.
gravenimage says
🙂
Noah T says
Chomsky is anti-Israel and anti-American. He comes on Press TV the official state tv of Iran and lambasts the US and Israel. No wonder he thinks the Republican Party is so dangerous because it has become a threat to Islamic Supremacists like those in Iran and a threat to his Jihadi friends all over the world. The Leftists love Islam.
LR says
He had to get in on the current media/political action somehow…So, of course he says something outrageous. Par for the course for big egos.
He knows very well who he would rather meet, if given the choice to meet with Trump, or, al Baghdadi…
Hmmmmm…tough decision…
Sam Suhr says
O.K…, you live long enough, chances are you’ll go senile at some point.
gravenimage says
Of course, Chomsky has been like this for many years…
Stewart Pearce says
Ugh….and yet people don’t seem to understand why I laugh at them when they cite Noam Chomsky as a serious academic…
quota raven says
To Stewart Pearce, who sez “Ugh….and yet people don’t seem to understand why I laugh at them when they cite Noam Chomsky as a serious academic…”
But, my dear! That’s eggzackly what he IS!
Cheers!
quota raven
Theodore Freund says
For them losing is 9/11. Being renunciated in an election is incomprehensible.
Yeah! Payback is a bitch!!!
Champ says
“This ridiculous hyperbole and sky-is-falling rhetoric is why people are fed up with the political and media elites” …
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Precisely!! Well stated.
Guy Macher says
Chomsky, Obama, Killary, Paul Krugman, Rachel Madcow, Wolf boy Blitzkrieg… Add a name to this list, please.
P2 says
Miley Virus
Matthieu Baudin says
“… This ridiculous hyperbole and sky-is-falling rhetoric is why people are fed up with the political and media elites: they’re squandering their political capital and moral authority on outlandish and baseless demonizing of those who dissent from their line, and what they’re doing is increasingly obvious to the general public…”
That’s right; and if it weren’t for his outstanding contribution to Linguistics, Noam Chomsky’s political thought would have been dismissed decades ago as that of an articulate but Paranoid Crank. Few people alive today have had their backside licked by as many radical sycophants as Noam and this no doubt has helped to sustain him in his aloof disdain for the civilisation that secured his elevation to prominence.
quota raven says
To Matthieu: Bravo! Brill!
Cheers!
quota raven
Eric Jones says
First of all, those who voted for Trump voted for him based on pocket book issues. Democratic elites told people to accept things as they are. Trump offered a plan the democrats had none.
A number of years ago I alerted Chomsky to a human rights violation situation going on here in NYC. I hoped to get his support in this situation. He said he would look into it. I heard nothing from him since. Its amazing how some on the Left care about everything overseas but don’t care about abuses here.
Eric
Mark A says
Noam Chomsky is a professor of linguistics.
Perhaps he should stick to linguistics instead of intruding on historians’ academic turf and making asinine comments on history.
citycat says
Why question the election?
A freak storm in the human psyche?
If so then may the rains of reason storm the Earth.
Or did common sense prevail, despite common communication being tyrannized by the rulers
Jack Holan says
In your analysis of thugs and idealogies they hid behind you forgot the most dangeous of all. Noam Chomsky the Movement or Party that was the all time killer was the Red Chinese Party or for your senses the Communist Party of China under Mao. Of course you probably carried the little Red Book during the 60s a decade that he murdered about 60mm of his own people in purges. Oh that sounds like the GOP to you! You are the Fool.
gravenimage says
Who are you addressing here, Jack?
branepilot says
They are called ‘haters’.
But because they are white and hate their own kind, its cool.
Noel says
I used to think that Noam Chomsky had lost the plot, but lately I’ve come to realise that he didn’t have the plot to start with.
Benedict says
Another one of those liberal, educated, leftist, communist, funded by the Soros group
Theo Prinse says
François Genoud (26 October 1915 – 30 May 1996 was associated with Noam Chomsky, Simone de Beauvoir, and Jean-Paul Sartre, sitting on a committee with them in the 1970s, which resulted in the pardon of Bruno Breguet.
Throughout the 1970s François Genoud (26 October 1915 – 30 May 1996 financed many left-wing groups with the goal of armed Arab liberation.[3] It is alleged that he delivered the ransom demand after Lufthansa Flight 649 highjacking in 1972
duh swami says
Donald Trump and the Republicans, sounds like a rock band…
While the DNC brings anxiety and despair, Donald and the Republicans bring us ‘real estate’…Trump is an reincarnation of Johnny Apll3seed…Johnny grew trees, Trump grows buildings…Trump will create hammer ready jobs, he will re-build America with a complete tune up and paint job, with a little help from the Republican party…
What’s so dangerous about that?
Cecilia Ellis says
Duh swami, already President-elect Donald Trump has done something which further re-builds America. On November 10, 2016, he stopped what he was doing to place a telephone call to the widow of a slain NYPD sergeant, something that Obama would not do:
“President-elect Donald Trump called slain NYPD Sgt. Paul Tuozzolo’s widow Thursday morning and personally extended his ‘condolences’ to her on the day that thousands of police officers paid tribute to the fallen Finest at his funeral.
‘I’m very sorry I cannot be there with you today. My thoughts and prayers are with you and your family during this difficult time . . . I want to express my condolences from me and my family.'”
http://nypost.com/2016/11/10/trump-calls-slain-cops-widow-to-offer-condolences/
gravenimage says
Thanks for that, Cecilia. More presidential than that current president…
Singh the Sikh says
He is a conspiracy theorist extraordinaire, nothing much more really.
steve brown says
Noam Chomsky comes from the same mold as George Soros.http://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/noam-chomsky-denied-entry-into-israel-and-west-bank-1.290701
Lawrence says
Chomsky is insane and as evil as it gets. He is on record as supporting Hezbollah (just before the outbreak of the 2006 War) and says things like Holocaust Denial isn’t anti-Semitic! The latter remarks relate to his association with notorious French Holocaust Deniers such as Robert Faurisson. Chomsky denied the Khmer Rouge genocide back in ’77 as dishonest American propaganda. It goes on and on.
Chomsky is the face of the Left, and why the Left is as evil as evil gets, yes as evil as the Nazis. And no that is not an exaggeration. If the Left are allied with Jihad lovers (Chomksy is a case in point), then they are as evil as evil gets.
rara says
Still, the global warming is real.
As in “your kids will hate you if you were against the measures to stop it.”
Whoever denies it is simply uninformed.
http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence/
And I know, due to the cognitive bias, the same that prevented a lot of people to acknowledge the problems of people who voted for Trump, I won’t manage to convince anybody here.
Rev g says
The “cognitive bias” is upon those who feel that consensus makes for good science. That your linked site features none of its own data, and refers to consensus, shows its lack of usefulness.
Consensus is virtually the opposite of science.
rara says
If you need the scientific data, they are here:
https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/
Not acknowledging them is exactly the bias I’m talking about.
Rev g says
That data is useless. I ask you, did they take temperature data from X number of sites at intervals dating back to the earliest date they mention? Did they use exactly the same sites for measurement from the earliest to latest data. No new sites, no new methods, the same exact sites and manner of measurement?
If not, any result is NOT scientific.
rara says
Rev g, I’m sorry, but either you’ve never understood how the natural science works or you’re repeating false arguments to support your “tribe.” Which is how confirmation bias, which I’ve already mentioned, works.
Yes, it is absolutely scientific changing the instruments we use for measurements and still being able to make the conclusions. Ever heard of the concept of calibration?
And I can fully understand that you will remain blind for any further argument. That’s how the people are wired. The confirmation bias.
Rev g says
I am quite aware of how science works, and apparently understand the concept of calibration infinitely better than you.
It is a simple fact that you cannot mix and match calibrations nor samplings and consider the data valid.
Maybe you need to revisit an introduction to physical science.
I belong to no tribe, but I do abhor bad science. Results driven pseudo science such as that behind AGW is typical of that ilk.
Guy Macher says
If man-made global warming is a fact, why did British scientists hide the data? https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2010/feb/01/leaked-emails-climate-jones-chinese
rara says
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_email_controversy
“Eight committees investigated the allegations and published reports, finding no evidence of fraud or scientific misconduct.”
quota raven says
Yikes! EIGHT? Really? And the source is Wikipedia? Please, Rara, get a grip.
Cheers!
quota raven
eduardo odraude says
Chomsky seems to be a biological determinist when it comes to language. At least he has often been characterized that way. So I don’t think his conclusions can be trusted on the whole.
As for global warming, if over 90% of climate scientists conclude that global warming not only exists, but is anthropogenic, I think it makes sense, within certain prudential limits, to operate on the basis of that conclusion.
Many Republicans think the global warming theory is nothing but a socialist plot to hamstring capitalism and extend state control over much of the economy. In my view, that many Repubs reject global warming is only partly due to anti-capitalist influence. Another factor behind the rejection of the theory is that big corporations don’t like the global warming theory because they think it’s bad for their vested interests and profits, and these corporations have influenced Repubs and are trying to manipulate the understanding of the science involved.
So global warming theory has become a sort of political football kicked back and forth by pro-capitalist and anti-capitalist forces. Both sides have sought to distort and manipulate the theory.
That said, I think the scientists — over 90% of climate scientists — are for the most part not motivated by anti-capitalist or pro-socialist motives in arriving at their conclusions.
Robert Spencer is technically correct that global warming, anthropogenic or any other kind, has not been proven. But is that saying a lot? Is anything in science ever proven?
Science falsifies all kinds of theories, but does not ever finally “prove” any theory.
P2 says
That ‘consensus’ you refer to is bogus. The 97% that barrack Hussein keeps throwing around has been debunked time after time.
Rev g says
Not at all. It means that 97% of those they polled, assuming they would agree with their premise, actually did agree.
There was a time when a consensus of experts believed the earth was the stationary center of the universe. But real science said otherwise.
P2 says
No it doesn’t. No one was polled. It was a review of published articles. If the author did not say somewhere in the article that they thought AGW is not proven, they counted the author as accepting AGW. Only 3% actually wrote something within their article affirming AGW.
The blind belief in headlines is one of the problems with the ‘consensus’ claim.
The IPCC reports have been shown again and again to have an executive summary that directly contradicts the actual data in the report. However, reporters don’t, or won’t, read the actual report & data points in the IPCC reports. They take the executive summary as fact. Researchers and authors of these reports have resigned over these manipulations of their work. Again, journalists have become press release reporters. Dissenters concerns are swept under the rug and given no voice. The climate change agenda has become a multi-trillion dollar industry. A lot of people are making obscene sums of money from these industries. The UN, through carbon taxes is hoping to become self-funding. It means no more begging for them. They have a huge financial interest in promoting AGW and the subsequent ‘taxes’ they will get a piece of.
Rev g says
That methodology is even worse. Besides selective consideration of authors, we run into grant criteria biases as well. Statistics are so easily manipulated, and the progressives are particularly adept at such manipulation.
Plenty of people fall for it hook, line, and sinker. You have a lot of company.
quota raven says
To P2 0 Yup. Eggzackly. Cheers! qr
rara says
Rev g, the same scientific methods that allowed us to launch the satellites that our mobile phones use are these that use the other satellites to investigate the state of the Earth, and use the same physics to reconstruct the processes of global warming.
Your rejection of global warming is unscientific. Any researcher who would actually prove the climate scientists wrong would be from that moment on the richest scientist in the world, that’s how big the interests of the oil corporations are.
quota raven says
So, Rara, how come these “scientists” neglect to factor in the influence of …wait for it…THE SUN….on climate, which has been changing all on its own since climate was invented? Huh? You think that big fat ball of fire in the sky has no role in climate change? According to you, 97% of “scientists” do. Jump back. Loretta!
Cheers!
quota raven
Rev g says
Problem with that high tech research is that since such methods of sampling did not exist even a short span of time ago, any comparisons are speculative, and NOT scientific.
Comparing apples to oranges cannot produce valid results. Real scientists understand that. Data from the past must be compared only to exactly the same data from today. Anything else is false. The addition of extra data sources skews the data. Science 101.
Rev g says
Apparently you are not familiar with the constraints of the scientific method.
eduardo odraude says
Here’s part of an abstract of a recent survey of 1868 climate scientists, 90% of whom support the view that there is anthropogenic global warming:
http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es501998e
Obviously, the scientific consensus can be wrong. But one should not pretend the consensus does not exist.
Rev g says
The consensus you speak of is from those 1898 persons, not the totality of the persons qualified to speak on the matter. I do remember something about a letter from thousands of such scientists in opposition. In other words, the consensus is imaginary.
eduardo odraude says
Remember: it is perhaps above all in the interest of the great oil powers — Saudi Arabia and Iran, for example, and the world’s oil companies — to deny the existence of anthropogenic global warming. After all, if people believe that anthropogenic global warming is real, what will happen? We will have to increasingly cut back on our use of carbon-based fuels, like oil. Could it partly be Saudi money, Iranian money, and oil company money that is denying the existence of anthropogenic global warming?
quota raven says
Eduardo – ANYBODY or any entity who has the cash can pay to produce propaganda. Even “scientists” or oil companies. Social engineering is expensive. But do-able.
Cheers!
\quota raven
eduardo odraude says
Rev g, post your letter from thousands of scientists. Somehow I don’t think you will be able to locate it.
Rev g says
Problem 1 ed….why. attempt to prove a negative? Your initial claim is hogwash anyways.
http://www.nationalreview.com/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2013/02/13/peer-reviewed-survey-finds-majority-of-scientists-skeptical-of-global-warming-crisis/#470178b0171b
and this…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2010/12/08/special-report-more-than-1000-international-scientists-dissent-over-manmade-global-warming-claims-challenge-un-ipcc-gore-2/
OOPS.
gravenimage says
eduardo odraude wrote:
Could it partly be Saudi money, Iranian money, and oil company money that is denying the existence of anthropogenic global warming?
………………………
With all respect, eduardo, re the Saudis and Iranians, not that I’ve ever seen. They seem to ignore the issue entirely.
eduardo odraude says
Amazing how what seems to be intelligence can often turn out to be highly sophisticated stupidity.
eduardo odraude says
To be clear, I’m referring to Chomsky’s sophisticated stupidity.
eduardo odraude says
Addendum: Spencer’s point in the article hits the bull’s-eye.
gravenimage says
🙂
Jedothek says
I love Robert ( I haven’t met him) but his reasoning here is bad. Chomsky believes in anthropogenic global warming. He has reasons for that belief. From that premise, and from the premise that republican politicians oppose action against global warming, it indeed follows that the republican party is more dangerous than the communists , Nazis etc., because the present day (alleged) ecological crisis is capable of vaster destruction than the old totalitarian parties were capable of causing. Chomsky is right to call attention to the danger he sees.
For those such as Robert who believe that Global warming is false or unproven, of course, Chomsky’s conclusion is also not proven; But it also not proven that Chomsky is hysterical. He is not ( as far as I know ) calling for republicans to be sent to concentration camps .
gravenimage says
He is not ( as far as I know ) calling for republicans to be sent to concentration camps .
…………………
That’s a high bar…
Susette says
Global warming is a reality, even though vehemently denied by many conservatives. The deniers have not produced any scientific evidence to counter scientific findings of global warming. This is not a liberal vs conservative issue. This issue affects humankind and God’s magnificent creation…our planet. This should be an issue we unite around. I just don’t understand what agenda is furthered by conservatives in denying global warming and climate change.
eduardo odraude says
Susette,
Many conservatives think that global warming theory is a socialist plot to hamstring capitalism with huge numbers of regulations and thereby put much of the economy under state control. Even if there is some element of truth in that background, I think on the other side wealthy corporations and interests — including probably Islamic powers with oil — are seeking to make people think there is no global warming problem. After all, if there is anthropogenic global warming, use of fossil fuels and oils would have to be cut back, and alternatives would have to be found. That is not in Saudi Arabia or Iran”s interest, nor in the interest of all the big oil companies.
So global warming theory has become a political football manipulated on all sides.
WAKE UP FOLKS. IN WHOSE INTEREST IS IT THAT WE DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING? IT IS IN THE INTEREST OF THE ISLAMIC OIL PRODUCERS AND THE WORLD’S OIL COMPANIES TO DENY THE EXISTENCE OF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING. AFTER ALL, IF ANTHROPOGENIC GLOBAL WARMING IS REAL, GUESS WHAT MUST BE LIMITED? USE OF CARBON-BASED FUELS, LIKE OIL.
Susette says
Ahhh…Eduardo…thank you for enlightening me… The evil, islamic oil powers (and those that benefit including Americans like Cheney & his Bushes) are behind global warming denials! Now it makes perfect sense. So why do people on JW, who despise Saudi Arabia (myself included) and its ilk, deny global warming and, consequently support these despots in their quest for destruction of Planet Earth via fossil fuel production? It would behoove them to reject the climate change hoaxes perpetrated by Big Oil, OPEC, the Middle East, etc., etc.
eduardo odraude says
Susette,
The reason people at JW sometimes deny global warming is that conservatives sometimes deny global warming — and conservatives deny global warming for two reasons, one sincere, the other insincere.
1. Sincere: some conservatives believe that global warming theory is basically a socialist impulse to hamstring capitalism with tons of state regulations and thus move us closer to socialism. These sincere conservatives have been fooled by insincere conservatives:
2. Some insincere conservative politicians are bought off by oil companies that do not want to see oil use curtailed, as over time it would have to be curtailed if anthropogenic global warming is real. Thus anti-global warming theory gets promoted, because there are big financial interests at stake.
Rev g says
3. Some prefer real science to manipulated computer models.
eduardo odraude says
I said “bought off by oil companies,” but would add also “bought off by Saudi Arabia and other Islamic oil powers.”
eduardo odraude says
And anyway, suppose for the moment anthropogenic global warming is BS. Jihad Watchers arguably should nevertheless support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, because it will hurt the Islamic oil powers, because the theory means that people will have to cut back on the use of oil and find alternatives. In other words, anthropogenic global warming theory helps to impoverish the Islamic oil powers.
But I don’t think the theory is BS. I think the theory is probably correct, and we should take advantage of it to contain and weaken Islam by decimating its economic base.
gravenimage says
eduardo odraude wrote:
And anyway, suppose for the moment anthropogenic global warming is BS. Jihad Watchers arguably should nevertheless support the theory of anthropogenic global warming, because it will hurt the Islamic oil powers…
………………..
Leaving aside the rest of your argument, this last would not necessarily follow at all.
In fact, what tends to happen in practice is that such pressure leads to diminished oil production in the West–that is, less fracking, oil shale, and drilling off the coasts, and hence *more* reliance on Islamic oil.
Rev g says
So, propagate a lie because it is in our best interests….how very muslim of you!
eduardo odraude says
So you would not lie under any circumstances, even to weaken totalitarians? How very pacifist of you and pure of you! Good thing you were not asked to be in the French Resistance.
Rev g says
Being honest is not being a pacifist. Your brain cells must be malfunctioning.
eduardo odraude says
I can just see you as part of the plot to assassinate Hitler. “Herr Hitler, I cannot tell a lie. I am not actually here to participate in this meeting. I’m here to kill you.”
Well, well, your arguments are so bad you are descending to ad hominem now? “Rev”?
Rev g, you are an unmuzzled, flap-mouthed, flap dragon.
Rev g says
You made a seriously flawed equivalence, I speculated on a reason for it. If I said ” you must be tired”, is that ad hominem?
Of course not. Again you add credence to my assessment.
Honesty does equal pacifism.
Your quick jump to insert Hitler drives home the matter.
eduardo odraude says
Now you, the big promoter of absolute honesty in all circumstances, are lying. You did not say I must be tired. You said something else clearly intended to be insulting. Now you reap the results.
To use your words, let me make it clear for your “malfunctioning brain cells.”
If you turn honesty into an absolute principle in all circumstances, you deny an essential weapon of war. You would make war — even just war — impossible.
My only real argument with you on this point is if you turn honesty into an absolute, which is what you implied. I would agree that one must be very careful in departing from honesty. One must only do so when absolutely necessary for self-defense, or when being honest would do no good and only hurt someone. Even then, it can sometimes be self-destructive to lie — for example, propaganda, when recognized as lies, destroys all future credibility. Lying should hurt one within. It is dangerous for the soul. Yet there are some occasions where it is the lesser of two evils. People can reasonably disagree about specific cases, of course. But implying that absolute honesty is best at all times merely shows that “brain cells must be malfunctioning.”
Rev g says
Are you a complete simpleton? Notice, a query, not an accusation. I compared my observation that your brain cells must be malfunctioning to similar, perhaps easier understood observation like you being tired.
If you have trouble with such simple ideas I can see why we cannot communicate well with you.
eduardo odraude says
Rev g,
You are a mammering, onion-eyed, cod-piece.
Rev g says
Doody doody doody.
gravenimage says
Yes, Eduardo–I would lie under certain limited circumstances, such as answering a Nazi asking whether I was hiding Jews in my attic. I would deny it even if I had a whole Jewish family up there. It would, in fact, be the moral thing to do.
But it is as a rule important to have truth on one’s side. That is a very important factor in the fight against Jihad–the Counter Jihad has truth on its side, and is steadily chipping away at deliberate lies and willful denial.
As for an example like this one regarding climate change, it is not just ethically troubling, but also tactically murky.
Leaving aside the issue of the validity of the concept of human-caused climate change, let us suppose that as you suggest we decided to pursue this to oppose Islamic oil.
It could, as I noted in an above post, easily backfire, since it is not always possible to predict the practical outcome of such a stance. I think it would be more likely that with growing restrictions on the West in its ability to drill for oil and to extract coal, that we would actually wind up *more* dependent on Islamic oil.
This is not just speculation–we have actually seen that result, whether it was intended or not.
If you are convinced of human-caused climate change, then you should indeed pursue such policies as you think would be useful in mitigating these effects.
But if you are suggesting that we embrace this without believing it as a strategy, I think this is misguided for a whole slew of reasons–not least, that good people would have no reason to believe anything we say after this.
Rev g says
There is no legitimate proof of AGW, hence the need to resort to false consensus arguments to convince the unlearned.
Minstrel says
The man should have been put in a rest home in 1972. Would have spared the world a lot of grief.
c matt says
He is 100% correct. The Republican party is the most dangerous organization in the world because it repeatedly fails to stop the Democratic party. Trump had to do it practically on his own, and the RINOs will turn on him at the first opportunity. Dangerous indeed.
Carolyne says
c matt When you look at it that way……………….
Frederikahere says
Noam Chomsky is still an idiot.
Some things never change.
Carolyne says
Does anyone care about anything this ridiculous old coot says? I think he has dementia. Climate change is occurring, I read just yesterday that the earth is cooling at an alarming rate. He says it’s heating up. Throughout the history of the world, with and without man, the earth’s climate has changed. It will continue to do so–with or without man.
Man-made climate change is the most ridiculous hoax ever perpetrated on the US. Made Al Gore a lot of money, though.
El Cid says
I get it. this is how I felt in 2008. We are still alive, thank God.
Ray M says
Noam Chomsky last book called “Who Rules The World” it was released early part of 2016. Is about how evil America is. From world war II to about Dec 2015.
In his book he starts off blaming America for doing evil all over the world. And he ends his book on the same note. That America is the bully of the world. Because America goes in and puts dictators in power all around the world. And then goes in and steals the countries resources. All through his book what I can remember he hasn’t liked any president of the US since before World War II. And that includes Obama. So why would it surprise anyone that he doesn’t like Donald Trump. For a man that hates America as much as he does I don’t understand why he hasn’t moved. Anyway it is obvious he gets his Information from the lame stream media.
It’s too bad that he doesn’t know how to use a computer. Because if he did it wouldn’t take much skill in finding out that Donald Trump and most the voters are very peaceful, compared to the radical so-called Democrats and all the hate-mongering racist communist supporters.
Noam Chomsky doesn’t like Israel in the least he has made this very clear. And because Donald Trump talked to Israel I am sure that is why Noam Chomsky hates Donald Trump. I myself I find it impossible to support any group that supports terrorism. Like George Soros and Obama.
gravenimage says
The appalling Noam Chomsky has even–ludicrously–blamed the US and Britain for starting WWII, and if he is not a Holocaust denier he is something very close to it. Ugly, ugly, stuff.
Felix Quigley says
quota raven
You refer to Lord Moncton as an authority. I think he is a conspiracist in reality. There are about 100 of his myths answeredhere…https://www.skepticalscience.com/Monckton_Myths_arg.htm
The issue of Trump, who I campaigned for, is quite a separate matter. Chomsky is wrong on that totally, There is much more to the Trump revolution than his position on Global Warming, a position which I predict will change (just as I boldly predicted Trump to win the election)
quota raven says
Felix – Thanks for sharing your view; Lord Moncton is not the only reason I am skeptical of man-made climate change. I have many, many other reasons and sources, too off topic for here.
Cheers!
quota raven
Felix Quigley says
Quota Raven
Please briefly explain your opposition to this theory of GW. It is at the centre of the post on Chomsky posted by Mr Spencer so is totally relevant.
My position is that science holds the cards here. I want them discussed.
I wanted Trump to win because his campaign was a campaign against lies, and to place the future of the world in the hands of liars like the UN Global Warming crowd and Obama greatest ever liar is a disaster.
I believe that Trump will be forced to change his mind on GW…That is a prediction.
I believe very strongly that this issue WILL BE discussed inside this new movement and I will seek to have it discussed in a fair and objective manner.
I have to say also that science tells me that a “Sixth Extinction” is now happening and this also concerns me greatly.
I am with Trump on so many things…against illegal immigration, Islam, border security, Nation, also the Chinese Stalinism – so for me these are issues open to discussion. These issues of science and the scientific method, across which cut the philosophies of religion are particularly prone to misconception.
For example somebody may come into this discussion with ideas that predispose them to one side because they are naturally opposed to the scientific method.
However in order to find out what is happening in our stretch of the woods in our particular corner of the universe we have to study not pray. I am not at all against praying but I do place my trust in-the scientific method, or if you like the scientific approach.
Scientists may be crooked of course so I am nit talking about that here. I am referring to the method. If a scientist deliberately lies then they betray the scientific approach.
P2 says
Have you heard of conformational bias? When grant based research results are analyzed, the results track with the views of the granting agency/company to an overwhelming degree statistically. The only way to negate this bias is to conceal the identity of the grantor from the grantee. In science one often finds what one is expected to find. People often used NASA & NOAA data as if these two agencies are immune to this effect. They are not. Since Trump is skeptical of AGW, look for these agencies to soon find global cooling.
quota raven says
Felix – Where to begin? My dad was a weatherman for the Army Air Corps, and he took weather and climate very seriously his whole life. We had many serious discussions over dinner about climate change..It was his opinion, after many years of observing weather and climate, that climate will always be in a state of flux/change (duh) and will always produce surprising and massively destructive storms and conditions. It always has.
Read what P2 has to say below re grants for a valid observation on the scientific method. and the effects of donor-known grants to fund research. This is pretty basic stuff, Felix..
Maybe you should do some googling, or go look up some videos on the subject at YouTube. as books don’t seem to be your thing.
Cheers!
quota raven
Felix Quigley says
Gravenimage
“The appalling Noam Chomsky has even–ludicrously–blamed the US and Britain for starting WWII, and if he is not a Holocaust denier he is something very close to it. Ugly, ugly, stuff.”
He follows and promotes the antisemtiic “Palestinian Arab Narrative” which is certainly Antisemitic in Nazi traditional terms…but as to Chomsky being close to Holocaust Denial that interests me and I am sure many other people…can you provide your sources and I promise I will look at them.
gravenimage says
Hi, Felix. The main issue is Chomsky’s support of and links to Holocaust deniers. Even his own account of this–which is rather self-servingly skewed–is quite troubling:
https://chomsky.info/1989____/
His implication at one point that he is only defending a person’s right to say such things without threat–to which every decent person should agree, no matter how odious the ideas–doesn’t hold up even in his own words.
And here’s more information:
http://wernercohn.com/Chomsky.html
As I noted, if this is not outright Holocaust denial, it is something disturbingly close to it.
Felix Quigley says
Mortimer
“What? Chomsky is Jewish now? You mean JINO (Jewish in name only). Chomsky DESPISES Israel.
His kind leave Jews vulnerable for the next genocide. He’s a confused chatterbox.”
In fact this is quite valuable. Chomsky IS confused. He is confusing. And he is a chatter box.
He is also very loved by the same antisemitic media BBC and the US channels like CNN who were/are so much against the Trump revolution. I believe THAT is the key because he IS a liar. His lies centre very much on Israel which he hates above all other things.
Islam the religion of killers says
I think stealth jihad just lost it’s stealth, this is now going to be a showdown of image, security and intelligence, the good side of it is if CAIR get caught financing or anyway attached to mayhem that will justify all that Trump is stands for is saying and the actions to come …
The showdown is on and all those Hillary supporters should thank God Trump won on the day ……..
gravenimage says
Stealth Jihad is only used when the Infidels are assumed to be strong–dangerous as stealth Jihad is, it is actually a back-handed acknowledgement of Infidel strength. It is when Muslims are fully emboldened and believe that resistance is weak that they drop the mask.
For instance, no Muslim in the Islamic State is bothering with stealth Jihad–there, the naked savagery of Islam comes out.
P2 says
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/B9780128045886000173
The link above is the abstract from The New Little Ice Age Has Started