Tyson, Neil D
he and Bill Nye sort of science ambasadors? both bigthink
5/14 not really tracking but bunch of stuff lately around new cosmos show
===
NEIL D TYSON CLOCK IT MSNBC 6 26 AI SLOP DEEP FAKE
---
http://www.alternet.org/culture/were-not-making-sht-neil-degrasse-tyson-unloads-anti-science-crank-press-event
==
victim?! odd he quits paper but not radio? diff standards?
onservative radio host Neal Larson quit writing his column for an Idaho newspaper after he made news for being called out by Neil deGrasse Tyson over a major factual error, the Daily Kos reported.
“The instant it was picked up nationally, I was checkmated,” Larson wrote in his final column for the *Twin Falls Times-News.* “I had no recourse, no comparable media platform at my disposal. It was as terrible and as helpless as you can imagine. Even more disappointing, a few people that I honestly thought were friends, shared online my unfortunate story with glee.”
Larson ran afoul of the astrophysicist and Cosmos host last week when he accused deGrasse Tyson of insulting a 9-year-old girl on Twitter.
Unfortunately for Larson, his premise was based on a story in the satirical website Clickhole. Even worse, deGrasse Tyson commented on the article and thoroughly debunked his column.
“You abrogated your journalistic integrity by not verifying what you read in somebody else’s article, before using it as a foundational pillar in yours,” deGrasse Tyson wrote.
Larson acknowledged the error in his final op-ed, adding that he apologized to deGrasse Tyson for his mistake. But he also complained about the amount of attention his failed attack received.
“For those in the national spotlight, this is probably old hat, but I wasn’t equipped to handle the influx, logistically or emotionally,” Larson wrote. “If anyone had sent a kind word or more gentle and constructive criticism, I apologize because I probably missed it in the onslaught of hate.”
However, Larson will continue broadcasting his radio show. Daily Kos pointed out that he has used it to argue, among other things, that Donald Trump is suited for the presidency because of his “alpha-male” personality, and that the choice of mascot for Washington D.C.’s NFL team is better than “a screaming Black Lives Matter activist, or a finger-snapping drag queen.”
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/i-was-checkmated-conservative-columnist-quits-after-being-embarrassed-neil-degrasse-tyson
==
http://www.alternet.org/right-wing/neal-degrasse-tyson-burns-neal-larson
...Tyson proceeds to point out lies and flaws in Larson’s argument, including links to articles and interviews and videos—including pointing out that Larson’s assertion that Tyson had attacked some young girl is a bald-faced lie.
So you abrogated your journalistic integrity by not verifying what you read in somebody else's article, before using it as a foundational pillar in yours.
Larson’s gonna need a strong drink to wash down that hot-air balloon he calls his ego.
Here's the rest of Tyson’s response:
2) I am agnostic, and actively disavow the atheist label:
[Audio: 6m30s]:
[Video: 3m 48s]
3) People who deny human-induced climate change are badly misinformed. This position is neither politically liberal nor conservative. It's factual. Although one could argue that all those who want to preserve the environment are the real conservatives in this discussion.
4) You use "liberal" as a tag to characterize my politics. Since I have no active public political position, that's a hard task to accomplish. Climate change deniers are misinformed. But so are people who think vaccines give you autism. And so are people who think genetically modified foods are bad for you. These science-denying postures cross political boundaries, as I clumsily attempted to convey recently on Bill Maher.
http://www.mediaite.com/tv/neil-degrasse-tyson-criticizes-liberals-for-a...
5) The "incident" with a 9yr old girl never happened. It looks to be a hoax. No such tweets ever existed on November 29th, 2015, or on any other day. My only tweet on November 29, 2015 (as ...
==
http://bigthink.com/paul-ratner/neil-degrasse-tyson-just-proposed-an-ideal-form-of-government
dawkins
==
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neil_deGrasse_Tyson
==
You recently spoke about who to blame for the state of the climate change debate in the U.S., the electorate or the politicians. Can you elaborate on that?
The issue here is not what politicians do because the electorate votes them into office. So what does it mean to complain about what politicians do? We should complain about what the electorate does. I’m an educator, so I see it as one of my duties, especially as a science educator, to alert people of what science is and how it works. About what it means for there to be an objective truth that we would then act upon.
You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.
If you want to lean in a political way because that’s your politics, you should do that based on an objective truth rather than cherry-picking science before you even land at an objective truth. You can’t just cherry-pick data and choose what is true about the world and what isn’t.
So I’m not blaming the electorate in that sense. I’m blaming an educational system that is not positioned to educate an electorate such that they can make informed decisions in this, the 21st century, where informed decisions based on objective scientific truths will play a fundamental role in what kind of society we create for ourselves.
How does the media fit into this? What responsibility do we have?
There’s this journalistic ethos saying if I get one opinion then I need to get another opinion that countervails that. So if I say the world is round, are you obligated to say the world is flat, lest someone think you are being biased in your reporting? Well, that’s absurd. You wouldn’t do that, you’re educated. You know that there are certain points of view that have no foundation at all in objective truth.
So the question arises then at what point should a journalist give equal time to equal points of view that are opposite or in denial of emergent scientific truths. If you allocated column inches in proportion to the scientific consensus of experiments, there would be one sentence talking about people who deny climate change and the rest of the ten columns talking about research that supports it. But that’s not what we see in the public.
I think journalists are abandoning what would be their sensibility of following the emergent truths and in some cases painting a debate as though there’s a scientific debate when in fact there isn’t one — and that makes for headlines and more clicks.
There was one headline that said, “Tyson defends Scientology” and people said, “oh I didn’t know you like Scientology.” I would ask if they read the article, which made no such claim, and they’d say “oh no, i just clicked on the headline.” So I’ve seen some journalistically irresponsible headlines.
What’s your approach to dealing with climate deniers?
StarTalk is not about debates. The goal of StarTalk is to enlighten you, and in my judgement and my experience, observing a debate never enlightened anybody; all it does is make people dig in more strongly into the point of view they had entering the debate, typically. So you’ve never seen me in a debate, ever, because that implies that we each have opinions and “oh let’s see who can give the best argument for this audience so they can believe my opinion instead of yours.” But if you’re more charismatic than I am or have better word use, or are more articulate, then you’ll win the debate, and that means you’ll be right and I’ll be wrong. This is not how it works.
Going forward, can you predict where the conversation around climate change will be in a decade or two? And maybe where we’ll be in meeting the challenges it poses?
I can’t predict where it will be, but I can suggest where it should go. The conversation that needs to happen — here it is: you have conservatives and liberals in a room, people with power, let’s say they are representatives or senators. They shake hands and say, “ok humans are changing the climate of this planet, this is the consensus of scientific experiments being conducted, what policy and legislation should we debate in the face of the information?”
That is the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.
The Republican is thinking different suggestions from the Democrat, and that is the healthy political conversation that should unfold. Should there be carbon credits or not? Should there be trade regulations or not? Should we invest in solar panels rather than clean coal?
That would be a fruitful debate that could be held in the political arena. But the moment the politicians start saying they are in denial of what the scientists are telling them, of what the consensus of scientific experiments demonstrates, that is the beginning of the end of an informed democracy.
When can we expect you to run for public office?
I was asked that by the New York Times a few years ago when there was some impasse in Congress and they did a fun thing and found a set of people who were not traditionally associated with elected office and asked them what they would do if they were President. They were looking for ideas that maybe hadn’t surfaced yet and could possibly solve the problem. So I responded to that and it’s on my website. It’s pretty clear where I stand on the issue and you can quote it with abandon — provided the headline you put above it is accurate.
From Tyson’s “If I Were President” post:
==
Neil deGrasse Tyson speaks on stage at the National Geographic Channel 2015 Winter TCA on Wednesday, Jan. 7, 2015, in Pasadena, Calif.
Astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson had choice words for the state of Florida Monday, saying he was “astonished” by Gov. Rick Scott’s administration’s alleged ban on using the words “climate change.”
Speaking as part of a lecture series in Sarasota, Florida and at a press conference before it, the renowned scientist and science communicator said that he thought that the U.S., as a country, was above using science as a political debate. Tyson also said voters held responsibility for electing lawmakers like Scott, which points to the need to better educate voters about issues like climate change.
“I don’t blame the politicians for a damn thing because we vote for the politicians,” he said. “I blame the electorate.”
Tyson has a point: a poll last year found that Americans are, in general, less concerned about climate change than people in many other parts of the world. And though most Americans believe climate change is happening, many don’t fully understand why.
Tyson also said that Florida officials should be worrying about what to do to prepare the state for the imminent threat of sea level rise, rather than restricting state workers from talking about climate change.
“Now we have a time where people are cherry picking science,” he said. “The science is not political. That’s like repealing gravity because you gained 10 pounds last week.”
Gov. Scott (R) has long been known for avoiding talking about climate change — during last year’s gubernatorial election, he skirted questions about the subject, and said in 2010 that he had “not been convinced” that climate change was happening. But the Scott administration’s dedication to keeping climate change under wraps in Florida was brought to light by a Florida Center for Investigative Reporting piece earlier this month, which quoted multiple former employees of Florida’s Department of Environmental Protection, all of whom said that the agency had an unwritten rule barring its staff from speaking publicly about climate change.
Since that piece came out, more reports have come out claiming that the ban extended to other agencies in Florida. A report from Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility claimed that a state employee was reprimanded for speaking about climate change in an official meeting, and Florida’s emergency management chief was mocked during a state senate hearing for his clear discomfort in speaking openly about climate change. Gov. Scott, however, maintains that the claims that his administration forbids its workers from speaking about climate change aren’t true, though he hasn’t gone into specifics.
Tyson, whose radio show StarTalk is being turned into a TV series for the National Geographic Channel, didn’t just talk about Gov. Scott during his address in Florida. He also answered questions regarding Sen. Ted Cruz (R-TX), who announced his plans to run for president this week. Cruz, who is chair of the Senate Space, Science, and Competitiveness Subcommittee, suggested in a hearing last week that NASA’s “core mission” would be better served if it spent less time studying the planet and more time finding ways to go out into space. Tysondismissed this claim.
“If you’re going to ignore Earth — and no one else is paying attention to Earth the way NASA is — you could be planting the seeds of your own destruction,” Tyson said. “It’d be different if most of [NASA’s budget] was spent on Earth, but that’s not the case.”
Tyson has been outspoken in the past about climate denial, and the need for politicians, the media, and the public to accept the science on climate change. He spoke out against the media’s need to create “balance” in stories about climate change and other scientific issues last year, saying giving equal time to people who deny widely accepted scientific theories doesn’t make sense. He also spoke last year of the need to address climate change instead of arguing about it.
“When politicians start analyzing the science, I don’t know what to say at that point,” Tyson said on CNN in 2014. “Are we going to wait until the coastlines get redrawn as the glaciers melt off of Antarctica and Greenland?”
==
http://www.motherjones.com/environment/2014/07/neil-degrasse-tyson-on-gmo
==
It’s easy to see why, despite their supposed enthusiasm for excellence, conservative pundits would offer up liberal scientists, journalists, and artists as hate objects for their base. This is a time of economic instability and ordinary people are seeing their fortunes declining. It’s easy to turn that anxiety into rage at people conservative audiences think have easy, charmed lives as coastal elites.
But in doing so, conservative pundits are exploiting their audiences, turning their class-based anger away from the people who are actually causing their economic problems, such as the Wall Street elite, and toward people who may be successful but who are not doing any harm to other Americans and are often trying to help them. If you can get your audiences to hate journalists and scientists, they won't hate the wealthy bankers who actually screwed them over.
This was epitomized by the recent National Review story by Charles C. W. Cooke titled “Smarter Than Thou” in which he fussed and whined about “the extraordinarily puffed-up ‘nerd’ culture that has of late started to bloom across the United States.” An illustration of the astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson graced the cover, drawn to look self-satisfied, even though deGrasse Tyson hardly gives off that vibe in real life....http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politics/right-wing-backlash-against-smartypants-neil-degrasse-tyson
http://www.alternet.org/environment/why-neil-degrasse-tyson-poses-direct-threat-creationists-pushing-climate-change-suicide
AlterNet [1] / By Dan Arel [2]
Neil deGrasse Tyson Praises Scientist Who Knew to Check His Religion at the Door; Creationists Go Apoplectic
May 12, 2014 |
Creationists want religion out of Cosmos, unless of course it favors them. Each week Neil deGrasse Tyson has been attacked by creationists and the religious right for anything he says that makes religion look bad. In this week's episode about electricity, Tyson discussed a Christian scientist, brushing off the importance of religious belief while engaging in scientific inquiry. Naturally, creationists don't like that.
Michael Faraday was introduced this week to millions around the globe for his contributions to science, many of which benefit us all today in our everyday lives. Faraday was a devout Christian, and Tyson mentioned this, but as David Klinghoffer of the Discovery Institute [3] points out:
“Faraday's faith is mentioned at the beginning but implicitly dismissed as having anything to do with his science. Cosmos shows us his impoverished family saying grace at the dinner table and explains that he 'took [their] fundamentalist Christian faith to heart. It would always remain a source of strength, comfort and humility for him.' That's it—nothing more than a warm blanket on a cold night.”
Tyson is not lying or misrepresenting Faraday here. Faraday was a great scientist who knew how to check his faith at the lab door and study the actual data in front of him.
This upset Klinghoffer to no end. He goes as far as to mention his 12-year-old son, a fan of Cosmos, who is not allowed to watch any episode because of the content. You have to love the open mindedness of raising your kid to only believe what you believe.
Klinghoffer quotes MIT professor Ian H. Hutchinson:
“One example of the influence of [Faraday's] theological perspective on his science is Faraday's preoccupation with nature's laws. 'God has been pleased to work in his material creation by laws,' he remarked, and 'the Creator governs his material works by definite laws resulting from the forces impressed on matter.'”
While this is correct, how would Tyson benefit the viewer by pointing this out? Faraday’s discoveries would not change based on his belief or the validity of his personal faith. Faraday calls them nature’s laws; he just happens to believe a God created them.
Klinghoffer continues:
“Tyson has gone out of his way, indeed twisting the facts, to depict faith as an obstacle to science. But when acknowledging its vital role in scientific history would be most appropriate, Cosmos invariably falls silent.”
It is Klinghoffer who twisted the facts, trying to make his readers believe that all of Faraday’s discoveries were based on his faith and not his devotion to the scientific method.
Tyson and the writers at Cosmos are not in some anti-religion conspiracy. They are simply delivering a dialogue about the world we live in. Creationists demand validity when none should be afforded to them.
A scientist like Faraday can exist today and indeed does. Scientists around the world hold their own religious views. The ones who are successful at science are the ones who are able to check their faith at the door and can work in the lab using the scientific method, not fairy tales.
Tyson has brought up religion a handful of times, to counter its stance against evolution, call out the claims that earthquakes are caused by moral issues, and remind everyone that in the past the church has gone so far as to kill those who used science to speak out against the Bible. However, Tyson and the writers at Cosmos have not made it a point to mention every scientist’s religious beliefs if they had no impact on the story at hand.
The Discovery Institute is simply embarrassed, as it was weeks before when its worldview was deconstructed on national television. In retort it stoops to ad hominem attacks of Tyson, MacFarlane and the writing team atCosmos, who are telling a beautiful lesson week after week.
Organizations such as the Discovery Institute highlight why there is such a divide between religion and science. The fact that they take offense at a scientist having religious beliefs that do not influence his discoveries in the lab shows once again that truth is not their goal.
As in weeks past, when the data invalidate the claims, the next best response is to attack Tyson. And just as in weeks past, science prevails when it simply produces verifiable data over ancient myths.
See more stories tagged with:
religion [5]
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/belief/its-funny-soon-neil-degrasse-tyson-brings-religion-creationists-dont-want-him-talking-about
AlterNet [1] / By Janet Allon [2]
8 of the Worst Right-Wing Wackos This Week: War on Science Edition
May 10, 2014 |
1. CNN’s S.E. Cupp to Bill Nye: You science guys are bullying us.
Remember when we all used to agree that science and knowledge were good things? When scholarship was respected? When we looked to educated people to do research and inform us about what was actually going on with the world?
It wasn’t that long ago.
This week, after the White House released a report on just how devastating climate change has shown itself to be right here at home, with superstorms, flooding, droughts and tornadoes already pounding America (and the rest of the world) with increasing frequency—the very phenomena reputable scientists have been warning about for a long time—what did the deniers do?
They upped the ante.
Not only are they impervious to knowledge, reason or fact, they apparently feel attacked by knowledge, reason and fact. So, they counterattacked. On CNN, S.E. Cupp accused scientists of being bullies. Scientists who are just trying to inform people about facts and something that affects us all. WTF is wrong with these people?
It happened on CNN’s Crossfire. Heritage Foundation economist Nicholas Loris argued with science guy Bill Nye and activist Van Jones that the extreme weather trends are "uncertain."
"I’m not a denier, I’m not a skeptic,” Loris said. “What I’m saying is, climate is changing — yes, manmade emission are in some part to that — but we haven’t seen these extreme weather event trends. The observed data doesn’t prove that."
Poor Bill Nye was flabbergasted.
“So let’s just start with, we don’t agree on the facts,” Nye said. “This third report came out, saying it’s very serious, you say no. There’s the essence of the problem, S.E."
That would be the S.E. Cupp from the Heritage Foundation, who then said this to Bill Nye: “Isn’t it a problem when science guys attempt to bully other people? Nick here had to say, ‘I’m not a denier.’ He had to get it out: ‘I’m not a denier.’ Because really, the science group has tried to shame anyone who dares question this, and the point I’m trying to make is, it’s not working with the public.”
Attack the scientists! The purveyors of knowledge! Kill the messengers!
Anyone else getting a Taliban-like feeling from this crew?
2. A sign that Fox News’ Benghazi obsession just might be getting out of hand.
OK, we’re not sure, but we think it just might be possible that Fox News is developing an unhealthy obsession with Benghazi. We’re just worried that maybe they should see someone for that particular problem. There are treatments. Cognitive behavioral therapy can loosen the grip such obsessions have. You can acquire tools to drive away these negative, repetitive thoughts swirling around in your brain. The thoughts that are preventing you from thinking about or doing anything about actual problems like, oh, we don’t know... maybe climate catastrophe!!!
Maybe we’re wrong though. Blowing the whole thing out of proportion. Here’s what got us worried. You tell us. Does this seem like a worrisome sign?
It was on Monday, just after the White House released the landmark report on climate change and its observable disastrous effects. It also announced that President Obama would be doing interviews with local weather announcers and meteorologists around the country to try to get the word out, and deliver the information from a source people generally know and trust, like Al Roker or (insert your local weatherperson here).
Here’s Fox News host Dana Perino on that:
"Tomorrow, President Obama is going to do interviews with meteorologists all across the country about a new climate change report ... I hope they ask him about Benghazi!"
Hear that, Al Roker?
3. Charles Krauthammer continues the assault on science, calling it superstition.
Fox News managed to find another crazy, irresponsible idiot disguised as a sentient being to debunk facts and science: good old Charles Krauthammer. He said on Tuesday that the belief in global climate change is mere “superstition” akin to the “rain dance of Native Americans.”
Why would he say such a provably wrong thing? We have no idea. It could be wishful thinking. Sure, we wish this whole climate change catastrophe would go away, and that we could wake up from it like a bad dream. We wish all these meanie scientists conducting real research based on actual facts would just stop discovering that the news is so very, very bad, and bullying us about it.
Krauthammer took his point a little further, about science actually being superstition. Yah, and the other way around, too. Up is down, Charles. Black is white. No is yes. “It’s always a result of what is ultimately what we’re talking about here, human sin with pollution of carbon. It’s the oldest superstition around. It was in the Old Testament, it’s in the rain dance of Native Americans — if you sin, the skies will not cooperate.”
Still more crazy talk from Chuckie Kraut: “Ninety-nine percent of physicists were convinced that space and time are fixed, until Einstein working in a patent office wrote a paper in which he showed that they are not,” Krauthammer said. “I’m not impressed by numbers, I’m not impressed by consensus.”
What does impress you, Charles? On second thought, maybe don’t answer that.
4. Pat Robertson: Fighting climate change will destroy America.
Pat Robertson added his sober assessment to the news of the new study on climate change’s damaging impact on the U.S. [3] by warning that efforts to combat climate change will 
[4].”
During his “700 Club” program Monday night, Robertson said actions to curb human-influenced climate change are part of an anti-American “socialist agenda,” saying it all goes back to “the playbook of Obama’s mentor.”
He did not appear to notice that he resembled an insane man as he said it.
Fighting climate change “is high on the agenda of the radicals who want to destroy America, it isn’t high on the agenda of those who really care about what goes on in life,” he said.
Patty, just one question. What the hell are you talking about?
h/t: rightwingwatch [5]
5. Fox News is just wondering if female breadwinners are a recipe for disaster. Just wondering.
It takes a ton of work, a huge budget and an army of numbskulls to try to set the social clock back roughly to the Victorian era. Or maybe just the 1950s. Either way. Lots of work. But the Fox Newsians are on it.
Some women are making good money. More than their husbands, apparently. Is that good? Fox News is just wondering. It’s emasculating. They’re just saying. Just reporting the news, that’s all.
This was the topic of a discussion Brian Kilmeade and Elisabeth Hasselbeck had with author financial writer/professional advice giver Farnoosh Torabi, who managed to be pretty calm in the face of questions like Kilmeade’s: “Is it worth it to have the man be the second highest paid person in the house?”
Because sometimes husbands cheat under those circumstances. And sometimes marriages break up when the man makes less. And we all know that none of those things happen when the man makes more.
And what if he’s the third highest earning person in the house? Like, what if one of the kids' careers takes off. What then? Would he divorce his kids?
Well, we don’t know, but something is going to have to be done, because the statistic they are citing is that in 24 percent of households, women are out-earning men. While normally Fox likes it when people earn money, especially rich people, they like it a little less when women do it, and emasculate their men.
h/t: mediamatters [6]
6.AZ Christian pastor: Women in yoga pants partially responsible for rape.
Last month, Dean Saxton, a University of Arizona student who preaches under the name Brother Dean Samuel [7], protested outside a documentary [8] about 1998 Miss World Pageant winner and rape survivor Linor Abargil.
It was her fault, he explained this week in an interview with Vice. She had put out some provocative pictures of herself. Therefore, she was asking for it. “I believe that if she was at home, and if she had kept to her Orthodox Jewishness, that rape would really probably would not have happened.”
Nice. This douchebag also likes to wear T-shirts that say “You whore.”
During his protest, he held a sign that said “You Deserve Rape.” He yelled at women to “give up your immodest clothing” and that “yoga pants are a sin.”
Do not even get him started on downward-facing dog.
h/t: rawstory [9]
7. Tony Perkins warns that condom use leads to tyranny, because, of course it does.
Family Research Council president Tony Perkins responded to the news this week that the Department of Education will investigate 55 colleges and universities for “mishandling sexual assault claims [10]” by coming to the very reasonable conclusion that contraception distribution “leads to tyranny.”
Huh? Sorry, Tony. Care to connect those dots for us?
Well, the problem, Perkins said on his “Washington Watch [11]” program, is “the sexualization that is taking place in our culture in general but on college campuses.”
Right, because 18- to 22-year-olds never used to think about sex. Furthest thing from their minds.
“Contraception is made available as if it were candy which sends a message, well it’s there, it must be there for a reason, and then we’re surprised when — this is not justification, it’s wrong, we are all responsible for our actions — but we’re surprised when people act on these outside factors that they are surrounded by,” Perkins sputtered.
Then, the non sequitur he apparently thought followed his already wobbly sequence of kind-of thoughts: “It leads to tyranny,” he said.
Dot connection fail.
h/t: rightwingwatch [12]
8. Gordon Klingenschmitt speculates that forbidden fruit in Genesis might have been marijuana.
Hoo boy! Crazy Gordon Klingenschmitt was at it again the other day on his “Pray in Jesus Name” program. Seems Klingenschmitt, a.k.a. “Dr. Chaps” felt called to respond to those “pot hippies” who cite Genesis 1:29, the line about God having given you "every herb bearing seed," as biblical justification for legalizing weed.
Oh, those dastardly hippies. Reading the bible? That is just low!
Klingenschmitt has cooked up a theory in his busy little brain that maybe the “forbidden fruit” was no apple; it was marijuana (maybe disguised as an apple? or smoked in an apple?).
No, actually, he’s done a little research. The bible does not use the word “apple,” he pointed out. It uses the word “forbidden weed.”
C’mon, people, weed?!! Remind you of anything?
“How do you know that the serpent didn't give pot to Eve and say 'go ahead, and the day that you eat this, you're not going to die,'” Klingenschmitt said. “But you are going to die.”
Oh man, what a buzz kill.
h/t: rightwingwatch [13]
[14]
See more stories tagged with:
s.e. cupp [15],
charles krauthammer [16],
fox news [17],
climate change [18],
Source URL: http://www.alternet.org/tea-party-and-right/8-worst-right-wing-wackos-week-war-science-edition
Links:
==