Campaigns and PAC's
Campaigning and PAC’s
I was recently approached by VoteSTEM as a potential candidate to support. Their stated mission is to “help elect more policy-makers with science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) backgrounds. Their STEM backgrounds give them important skills for making evidence-based policy decisions. They bring training and experience in gathering, assessing, and analyzing information. In addition, many of the pressing issues facing our society have STEM components, ranging from cybersecurity to climate change. We believe that even a small cohort of policy-makers with STEM backgrounds can help shift politics to a fact-based discourse.”
A pretty lofty goal and one I am in favor of. But, then you read on further down and find some caveats a candidate must meet to have their backing; ideology is more important to this group than facts and evidence. If you are interested click on the link provided to see our conversation via email.
1. You have a new message:
Via: https://www.turnerforcongress.org/
Message Details:
o Name Kim
o Email kiminoa@gmail.com
o Subject Univ BS
Message Hello! Thanks for your service, both as a submariner and now running for Congress. I'm helping a friend collect data for candidate biographies. What is Mr. Turner's BS degree in? Thanks!
2. Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
To:
kiminoa@gmail.com
Raw Message Printable View
Kim, appreciate your interest but before I release any information beyond what is reported on my sight you will need to identify who is asking and why it is needed. You can email the particulars to this email address. Thanks
3. Kim R" <kiminoa@gmail.com>
To:
"Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
Raw Message Printable View
VoteSTEM, we're looking for candidates with STEM (Science Technology Engineering Math) backgrounds.
At this point I read up on VoteSTEM.
4. "Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
To:
"Kim R" <kiminoa@gmail.com>
Raw Message Printable View
Kim, appreciate your interest. I do hold a B.S. degree with most of my degree grounded in hard and soft science from my Navy days. Whether talking about how fluid dynamics work in the most hostile environment on earth to the mechanics of surviving such an environment. Radio wave propagation, electron flow, cyber tech, weather affects, teaching, training and mentoring, LW reactors, fission, phy of sales; you name it and chances are I have done it, studied it, and/or written about it in one way shape or form. I, for lack of a better description, am a jack-of-all-trades, student of history and a questioner of all things. STEM takes a position that climate change is man-made, and since I am a fact person, must tell you up front that I disagree with that premise. First, science isn't settled on the subject by a long shot. It will take 3 to 4 hundred years worth of data, not the 130 years most of the pundits of climate change base their beliefs on, to really BEGIN to point to an answer as to whether or not man is responsible. Given the geological evidence, which is a settled science, our earth has been through many epochs of climatic change, and it hasn't stopped! Based on the un-manipulated NOAA data there has been no significant change. This same Data does show a slight cooling. Based on the data of the Arctic ice pac (which I am versed in, having personally been to the Arctic) over the last 20 years, the pac is increasing in size, not decreasing. When scientist deliberately manipulate data to obtain a specific result; wouldn't you agree that this is pure subterfuge (lying)? NO, science is not settled on this issue by a long shot. I look at all the data when I am interested in something and I don't push the 'I believe' button just because someone tells me I should.
The following is her response:
5. "Kim R" <kiminoa@gmail.com>
To:
"Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
Raw Message Printable View
Thank you for the thoughtful response, and best wishes in the coming months
The more I thought about it the more irritated I became at this obvious bias and two-faced response. By their own mission statement I would be a perfect candidate based on my background, so, I decided I would call them out, so to speak:
6. "Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
To:
"Kim R" <kiminoa@gmail.com>
Raw Message Printable View
A trivia question for you: How many scientists in the U.S. endorses the following statement:
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind. There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Do you really know who benefits and who doesn't on this issue? Follow the money! example: in a 4 year time-frame (during the Obama years) over 64 billion dollars was invested to prove the IPCC theory correct using our tax dollars, while at the same time no tax payer money was used to look at other causes to climate change.......we have a lawyer here in my home state that has an advertisement that shows that most people will pick the pile of money over nothing every single time. Imagine that. Even NASA is guilty and will play the money over fact game. (In case you don't know, in scientific circles, herding is a term used when money, or lack there of, becomes the primary focus.) A lot of money is being made, but only in certain circles (Al Gore is a prime example), by playing on the fear of others......Go figure.
p.s. have you seen the latest on the ozone hole over the Antarctic?
(31,478 American scientist, including 9021 with Ph.D.’s)
Of course no answer as of now.
7. "Harry Turner" <turnerforcongress@yahoo.com>
To:
"Kim R" <kiminoa@gmail.com>
Raw Message Printable View
Just one more reason why to be skeptical of anything promoted through the IPCC: A leading contributor to the IPCC climate change report stated, quote; “We will continue to create and tell new stories about climate change and mobilize them in support of our projects.” (Mike Hulme) (them being the public (us)).
And your organization claims to: ' We are non-partisan, because we want all political parties to include policymakers with STEM backgrounds, who will make evidence-based decisions.' I would imagine that if your group were truly non-partisan you wouldn't take stances, like climate change and evolution (one abounding with disagreement within the various scientific communities and the other unproven, a theory needing proof to support it.). Einstein once postulated the "Theory of Relativity" which has a lot of anecdotal support but no direct evidence to prove it (otherwise it would be the "Law of Relativity"). This is the same for the "Theory of Evolution". Does the VoteSTEM group need a bunch of "Yes" people? It sure seems that way to me. Imagine that.
Of course, this is typical of the liberal mentality: When called out no response is forthcoming. As your representative you can expect things like this from me.