My intent was to point to the inappropriateness of someone just out of college distorting things that scientists 35 years your senior have spend years of their lives doing.

Not a single person actually apologized for tossing around personal details about me that they had no consent to publish here.

I wrote to TP and asked that they delete the post I made that pointed to your full name. They did that.

F. Luntz. Assuming it is really you, I notice you made the trouble of making a troll post with little substance while ignoring my own direct question. Are you now a supporter of Global warming theory and that is why you believe the Bush admin shouldn’t be using your past comments…or were you always a believer in global warming and simply now feel the public is more informed and that the Bush makes an error in continuing pushing the lie you originally believed they could get away with but no longer? I believe this is a valid question towards your motives and your supposed change of heart.

Second, Bush’s loyal supporters are neither moderate, bi-partisan, or objective as they claim. They are not “patriots” eiterh although they would love to be known only under that title. The loyal Bush supporters are “NATIONALISTS.” Nationalists have a long history of ignoring reality and believeing and spreading misinformation to push their own agenda. Ironically, one of the best works on the subject is an essay by George Orwell called “Notes on Nationalism” in which he details how and why nationalists are able to knwoingly lie and deceive while still believing ABSOLUTELY that they are right and not doing anything wrong. I would recommen it to anyone here who is tired of listening to the likes of the willfully ignorant such as Seixon and other loyal Bush supporters who spread misinformation as supposed moderates.

They all are. They have that WAR mentality that means to them that they are constantly in attack mode with any means necessary to WIN! They think in absolutes and there is never any room for compromise or concensus. It’s a win or lose situation tothese people, who fail to recognize that they aren’t in this alone. Or that the causes they champion are destroying their planet as well. And no amount of money will save them. There is no water on Mars or the Moon, and Venus cannot sustain life. They aren’t getting away either.

When I first came here at the end of last year I tried to have intellient debates with the other side. But, it is impossible. They base the majority of their opinions on emotion and a belief that the universe is this fairytale fantasy land where they are the most important creatures who will be saved by invisible idols when they are done messing up the place like a gaggle of juvenile delinquents. It’s nuts. And I’m finding the best any of us can do is just give them back what they give – by debunking their nonsense and standing up to their lies and threats. They are nothng more than scared little ignorant sheep in wolves clothing.

It’s nice to know there are other people who also stand on their principals. Inspite of the consequences. I wish there were more. Then perhaps things might never have gotten this far down a really rocky road…

Is Frank Luntz seriously suggesting that what he does in any way fits this description? Or is he just a monstrous hypocrite?

I am not comfortable divulging my name in this forum. I am a soft-money researcher at a public university, which means I am supported entirely by research grants. Most of this money comes from federal agencies. In the past I have been publicly critical of two of these agencies. In 1999, in response to Republican posturing that grew out of the Wen Ho Lee case, the Clinton administration ordered heightened security at national research facilities. As a consequence, one of these agencies ordered national agency checks (NACs) for all researchers using their computers, even those used to conduct unrestricted, unclassified research at an academic institution. Although I have no problem with security clearances when appropriate, legal, and necessary, I am convinced that this actiion was unconstitutional, because it was clear that the federal government had no compelling reason to impose these clearances. I refused to go through the NAC out of principle, and wrote letters of protest to university officials and to my federal representatives. The federal agency stripped me of my privilege to use the computing facilities, which was a significant blow (we’re not talking about desktop computers here, but state-of-the-art parallel supercomputers). The research group in which I work continued to receive funding through this agency, but only for a while (I don’t lead this group; the principal investigator is a professor who is internationally renowned in his discipline). It wasn’t too long, however, before the “reorganization” occurred. Our funding was stripped in a way that was obviously political and punitive. My boss has been very supportive even though this was a blow to the group. I have grown more cautious since then, however, especially since a large amount of our current funding comes from a particular federal agency that has become highly politicized.

In any case, who I am isn’t important here. What is important is calling out propagandists like Luntz and Seixon for what they are.

We are angry with our eyes wide open. You are a professional propagandist, and should take responsibility for your role in the precipitous decline of this great nation. But you don’t, because you are a moral and ethical cripple.

Frank Luntz

I think RealScientist did the right thing. He didn’t post any information that wasn’t already published in a public forum. The rule only applies if he posts a phone number or email address.

And Seixon wants a political career with anonymity? Ha… Contradictory logic – just like every single one of his posts.

I don’t. I use this same nickname everywhere I post.

Seixon writes: publishing what you find there in a public forum that has rules against it is doing that. There’s a reason I, and you, don’t go under our real names here. I respect your privacy in commenting here, why can’t you respect mine?

I disagree with you on the interpretation of the policy, since you have voluntarily allowed this information to be published at American Spectator, but the policy is ambiguous about what is actually allowed. I will take me chances with the monitors, and if they ban me, so be it. These are critical times for the world, the stakes are high, and it is important to call propagandists like you out for what you are. You may not believe what you do is lying, but wingers like you have pushed the boundaries on the definition of lying so far out there that it is damn near impossible to lie in your view. I happen to believe that your sort of pathological intellectual dishonesty constitutes lying, so that is what I am calling it.

As for your remarks about brainwashing, groupthink, and me being a desperate hack, take a look in the mirror. I am an accomplished scientist with over 50 papers and invited book chapters published in leading scientific journals and professional reference works, and an internationally recognized expert in computer simulation of coupled fluid dynamics, heat and mass transfer (yeah, that’s pretty closely related to what the global climate modelers do, and though I do not model climate myself, I have an intimate understanding of the mathematics and methods they use). I am not here to debate you on any of your pseudo-scientific claims. Intellectually you are way, way over your head with me. If you are feeling badgered and harassed here, take your clown act somewhere else.