Well, the most militant ones seem to be the most surprising- they seem to honestly think they're straight as they scream and scream about homosexuality (a topic I don't really obsess about that much, since I'm not gay). Then once in a while you hear about them getting caught doing things like soliciting undercover cops for sex. Even more amazingly, they'll view their action as a mere sin- they pray to God, get forgiveness, and then carry on as if they haven't revealed anything about themselves- as if any of us might have goofed up and done that. Maybe they think that it's the sort of thing that we're all tempted to do, but that we refrain from because of our morality. But if you're *actually* straight, hanging out with the opposite sex doesn't involve forcing moral restraint on yourself at all- it's a visceral response. If I saw two guys having sex, I might want to vomit, but I also wouldn't *judge* them for it, because I don't think they ever chose to be gay, and I wouldn't see their behavior as indicative of some sort of moral failing. And I'm not afraid of being in their presence and getting "recruited". People who think gays can be recruited, and bitch about gay people's "chosen behavior", must be imagining that they feel tempted to make the same choice- but that all of us feel those temptations, whether gay or straight.
There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with. What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one.
That's what's being discussed, as if this were a narrow law for protecting religious cake-bakers. Maybe that's what they have in mind when they write this stuff. But it also will protect doctors who refuse to see adopted children of gay couples (this has already happened in Michigan thanks to the federal RFRA). The law they passed in Indiana goes further than the RFRA and other religious freedom laws across the country, which prohibit intrusions on religious freedom by the government. This one extends that policy to include not only to protection from government, but similar "intrusions on religious freedom" by private parties., which necessitates the removal of the "anti-discrimination" window dressing that the prior religious freedom laws have. Before Indiana passed the law, it was sent a letter by 30 law professors, pointing out the likely consequences:
The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting
religious liberty rights a special status. In so doing, the proposed law jeopardizes parallel compelling state interests such as public health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties. What is more, without language that prohibits the shifting of the costs of religious liberty rights secured under the state RFRA to third party rights-holders that do not share the religious beliefs of the claimants, the proposed RFRA risks exposing the state to valid claims that
it has violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over non-religious policies and practices. Further, adopting a measure such as the proposed RFRAs, one that creates a legal mechanism by which the costs of religious liberty may be shifted to third parties, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns under the federal Constitution insofar as it risks governmental endorsement or support of religion, and can be reasonably read as the state advancing religious interests. The use of state power in the services of religion or religious interests clearly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.
In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the stateâ(TM)s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not "open a door" to conversation, but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic society.
"Gay marriage" is nothing more than a ploy to force acceptance on people who have serious religious object to homosexual acts and supporting such acts.
People are entering long-term marriages as part of a "ploy" against you? Must everything be about you?
By inflating their grades, the students were denied the education they deserved, many of which were special needs students.
This would have been true 15 years ago, before we decided to go test crazy in an effort to identify and defund the schools that are wasting taxpayer money simply by being below average. That created a perverse incentive. Nowadays, when they don't help the kids unwittingly cheat, teachers will get laid off or not replaced, funds get diverted to charter schools, and class sizes eventually balloon to more kids than can fit in the room. The fact that we're now charging teachers with "racketeering" for merely trying to keep the schools funded (which wasn't a concern when I was growing up) shows how drastically we've destroyed the country's 170-year-old public education system in just a few years.
They don't (and shouldn't) have the "right" to have Hobby Lobby buy them contraception.
Their employer doesn't "buy them contraception", it just buys them health insurance. And at that point, they can start minding their own business about their employee's personal lives. Why should details about your health care still be under the influence of your employer's religion? Your employer has no business deciding if you shouldn't get insurance coverage for a circumcision.
Nobody should have any qualms about mining anything on the Moon since it has no ecosphere to start with.
Except for the part that involves producing and burning rocket fuel in Earth's ecosphere to lift mining equipment and return fuel. (I mean, you're joking, right?)
"Check this out, comrade, it's like I have my own exercise instructor!", announced Winston to his comrade Syme, as he turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. "You can dim it, so It saves electricity when you're asleep!"
The instructress had called them to attention again. "And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. ONE-two! ONE-two!..."
"Oh I hate this one, he whispered to Syme. "It sends shooting pains all the way from my heels to my buttocks and often ends by bringing on another coughing
fit."
"But have you installed the Newspeak translator app?", asked Syme. "It's so cool, you just speak English to it and it translates what you say into proper Newspeak!"
"Oh, that sounds awesome!" said Winston. "Can I download it from the Ministry of Plenty's app store?"
"Ha ha, no!" replied Syme. "It comes preinstalled as part of the operating system! You couldn't uninstall it even if you wanted to."
"Wow!" exclaimed Winston. You mean I have it already, then? So I don't need to waste time looking for it."
"You work at the Ministry of Truth, Winston!" laughed Syme. "I would expect you to know these things already." He paused for a moment, then asked, "Did you see the prisoners hanged yesterday?"
"I was working," said Winston indifferently. "I shall download it and watch it later, I suppose."
"A very inadequate substitute," said Syme. His mocking eyes roved over Winston's face. "I know you," the eyes seemed to say, "I see through you. I know very well why you didn't watch the live stream of those prisoners hanged."
"Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! THAT'S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the
whole squad, and watch me."
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face
remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and--one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency--bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.
"THERE, comrades! THAT'S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look." She bent over again. "You see MY knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. "Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's MUCH better," she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.
"I'm impressed, Winston," said Syme. "If you'd told me you could touch your toes before you got this thing, I would have said that's such bullocks." He then silently nodded at the screen. "You think she really has four kids? She looks kind of hot for 39."
"I heard that!" screamed the instructress. "I'm flagging your numbers and adding you both to the Ministry of Love's follow list!"
Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it.
Incorrect, not shocking. Evolution doesn't become any more or less true if it becomes a political issue in churches. The laws of physics don't change if you're a wealthy industry that can afford to fight back politically against physicists. Your posts in this entire thread (fuck, on this entire site, for years) have been perfused with the idea that scientific phenomena can change if you politically attack them. You can maybe change what scientists examine and the course of scientific discovery, but that's not the same thing. And if you're going to suggest that's what happening here, because we haven't looked hard enough at the sun or something, you're wrong. Industry in this case has spent a lot of money funding scientific research into non-anthropomorphic causes of climate change, and have only managed to produce bullshit.
If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it.
One of the sponsors of the Secret Science Reform Act was Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. Here's what he's had to say on that topic:
God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. There's a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says. And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.
He does want a "faith based approach to law making", but at least he's been "forthright about it".
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore," the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech. "Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity." The crowd of 500 stood up and cheered.
The IRS targeted political groups that brought in the most money. That meant that most of them were PACs with large corporate contributions, which primarily donate to Republican candidates. So naturally the Republicans made it into a fake scandal. Ironically the guy at the IRS who was at the center of the "scandal" was himself a Republican.
ObamaCare has highlighted the "Rule of Unintended Consequences". Who knows what consequences are in this decision. The only time the "people" win is when the Federal Government does not regulate. Regulation is strangulation and, ultimately, death.
How much can I make if I post shit like this? Will they pay me less if my bullshit posts get modded down? And do they make you post "make money on your computer with Google" crap?
In the first link he says to get vaccinated; and he's only wrong if you look at it from a libertarian political perspective. In the second he says that TV weathermen should once in a while mention that a heavy storm is "consistent" with climate change (not "caused by"). That's a typical denier tactic is to imply that since we don't know which individual storms were worsened by climate change, then we can safely say that none of them were. That's exactly what Marsha Blackburn said in that video.
OK, I should have written my comment from Nye's perspective not mine. If these "farmers" and "programmers" aren't qualified to speak then neither are democrat politicians nor green campaigners, regardless what opinion they hold. Only the high priests of science should be allowed to say anything. If Nye is going to apply appeal to authority then he should, at least, apply it consistently.
Actually I don't think this characterizes Nye's position at all (and the article summary sucks BTW). On a show with him, Marsha Blackburn said that "I think that Bill would probably agree with this, neither he nor I am a climate scientist. He is an engineer and actor, and I am a member of Congress, and what we have to do is look at the information we get from climate scientists." He responded that "you don't need a PhD in climate science to understand what's going on". It seems a distortion to say that he thinks "only the high priests of science should be allowed to say anything," only that you need to be scientifically literate.
You originally said that to be consistent, if I shout down someone who says X is true, I should also shout down someone who says X is false. I didn't need to bring up "authority" at all to point out what a dumb statement that was.
BTW, this was also wrong:
Science does not rely on qualification or authority or consensus and the myth that it does is the biggest threat to scientific literacy today.
Consensus is part of the scientific method. You come up with a theory, test it with an experiment, publish your conclusion, and subject it to peer review where it may or may not gain consensus.
Slashdot Mirror
Well, the most militant ones seem to be the most surprising- they seem to honestly think they're straight as they scream and scream about homosexuality (a topic I don't really obsess about that much, since I'm not gay). Then once in a while you hear about them getting caught doing things like soliciting undercover cops for sex. Even more amazingly, they'll view their action as a mere sin- they pray to God, get forgiveness, and then carry on as if they haven't revealed anything about themselves- as if any of us might have goofed up and done that. Maybe they think that it's the sort of thing that we're all tempted to do, but that we refrain from because of our morality. But if you're *actually* straight, hanging out with the opposite sex doesn't involve forcing moral restraint on yourself at all- it's a visceral response. If I saw two guys having sex, I might want to vomit, but I also wouldn't *judge* them for it, because I don't think they ever chose to be gay, and I wouldn't see their behavior as indicative of some sort of moral failing. And I'm not afraid of being in their presence and getting "recruited". People who think gays can be recruited, and bitch about gay people's "chosen behavior", must be imagining that they feel tempted to make the same choice- but that all of us feel those temptations, whether gay or straight.
There is not a blanket refusal of services to "Christians," "Atheists" or what ever other classification we can come up with. What is being discusses is a very narrow good/service to something that some people find distasteful, so they would prefer not to take part in one.
That's what's being discussed, as if this were a narrow law for protecting religious cake-bakers. Maybe that's what they have in mind when they write this stuff. But it also will protect doctors who refuse to see adopted children of gay couples (this has already happened in Michigan thanks to the federal RFRA). The law they passed in Indiana goes further than the RFRA and other religious freedom laws across the country, which prohibit intrusions on religious freedom by the government. This one extends that policy to include not only to protection from government, but similar "intrusions on religious freedom" by private parties., which necessitates the removal of the "anti-discrimination" window dressing that the prior religious freedom laws have. Before Indiana passed the law, it was sent a letter by 30 law professors, pointing out the likely consequences:
The proposed law seeks to override this reasoned balance among rights by bluntly and categorically granting religious liberty rights a special status. In so doing, the proposed law jeopardizes parallel compelling state interests such as public health and safety, equality, and other fundamental liberties. What is more, without language that prohibits the shifting of the costs of religious liberty rights secured under the state RFRA to third party rights-holders that do not share the religious beliefs of the claimants, the proposed RFRA risks exposing the state to valid claims that it has violated Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution, a provision that prohibits the law from preferring religious over non-religious policies and practices. Further, adopting a measure such as the proposed RFRAs, one that creates a legal mechanism by which the costs of religious liberty may be shifted to third parties, raises serious Establishment Clause concerns under the federal Constitution insofar as it risks governmental endorsement or support of religion, and can be reasonably read as the state advancing religious interests. The use of state power in the services of religion or religious interests clearly runs afoul of the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution's First Amendment and of Article 1 of the Indiana Constitution.
In our expert opinion, the clear evidence suggests otherwise and unmistakably demonstrates that the broad language of the proposed state RFRA will more likely create confusion, conflict, and a wave of litigation that will threaten the clarity of religious liberty rights in Indiana while undermining the stateâ(TM)s ability to enforce other compelling interests. This confusion and conflict will increasingly take the form of private actors, such as employers, landlords, small business owners, or corporations, taking the law into their own hands and acting in ways that violate generally applicable laws on the grounds that they have a religious justification for doing so. Members of the public will then be asked to bear the cost of their employer's, their landlord's, their local shopkeeper's, or a police officer's private religious beliefs. As we have learned on the federal level, RFRAs do not "open a door" to conversation, but rather invite new conflict that takes the form of litigation. This collision of public rights and individual religious beliefs will produce a flood of litigation, whereby Indiana courts will be asked to rebalance what has been a workable and respectful harmony of rights and responsibilities in a pluralistic society.
"Gay marriage" is nothing more than a ploy to force acceptance on people who have serious religious object to homosexual acts and supporting such acts.
People are entering long-term marriages as part of a "ploy" against you? Must everything be about you?
By inflating their grades, the students were denied the education they deserved, many of which were special needs students.
This would have been true 15 years ago, before we decided to go test crazy in an effort to identify and defund the schools that are wasting taxpayer money simply by being below average. That created a perverse incentive. Nowadays, when they don't help the kids unwittingly cheat, teachers will get laid off or not replaced, funds get diverted to charter schools, and class sizes eventually balloon to more kids than can fit in the room. The fact that we're now charging teachers with "racketeering" for merely trying to keep the schools funded (which wasn't a concern when I was growing up) shows how drastically we've destroyed the country's 170-year-old public education system in just a few years.
Snowden should claim that Obama's executive order was motivated by his refusal to deliver NSA secrets to gay weddings.
They don't (and shouldn't) have the "right" to have Hobby Lobby buy them contraception.
Their employer doesn't "buy them contraception", it just buys them health insurance. And at that point, they can start minding their own business about their employee's personal lives. Why should details about your health care still be under the influence of your employer's religion? Your employer has no business deciding if you shouldn't get insurance coverage for a circumcision.
WTF are the air quotes for?
Nobody should have any qualms about mining anything on the Moon since it has no ecosphere to start with.
Except for the part that involves producing and burning rocket fuel in Earth's ecosphere to lift mining equipment and return fuel. (I mean, you're joking, right?)
"Check this out, comrade, it's like I have my own exercise instructor!", announced Winston to his comrade Syme, as he turned a switch and the voice sank somewhat, though the words were still distinguishable. The instrument (the telescreen, it was called) could be dimmed, but there was no way of shutting it off completely. "You can dim it, so It saves electricity when you're asleep!"
The instructress had called them to attention again. "And now let's see which of us can touch our toes!' she said enthusiastically. 'Right over from the hips, please, comrades. ONE-two! ONE-two!..."
"Oh I hate this one, he whispered to Syme. "It sends shooting pains all the way from my heels to my buttocks and often ends by bringing on another coughing fit."
"But have you installed the Newspeak translator app?", asked Syme. "It's so cool, you just speak English to it and it translates what you say into proper Newspeak!"
"Oh, that sounds awesome!" said Winston. "Can I download it from the Ministry of Plenty's app store?"
"Ha ha, no!" replied Syme. "It comes preinstalled as part of the operating system! You couldn't uninstall it even if you wanted to."
"Wow!" exclaimed Winston. You mean I have it already, then? So I don't need to waste time looking for it."
"You work at the Ministry of Truth, Winston!" laughed Syme. "I would expect you to know these things already." He paused for a moment, then asked, "Did you see the prisoners hanged yesterday?"
"I was working," said Winston indifferently. "I shall download it and watch it later, I suppose."
"A very inadequate substitute," said Syme. His mocking eyes roved over Winston's face. "I know you," the eyes seemed to say, "I see through you. I know very well why you didn't watch the live stream of those prisoners hanged."
"Smith!" screamed the shrewish voice from the telescreen. "6079 Smith W.! Yes, YOU! Bend lower, please! You can do better than that. You're not trying. Lower, please! THAT'S better, comrade. Now stand at ease, the whole squad, and watch me."
A sudden hot sweat had broken out all over Winston's body. His face remained completely inscrutable. Never show dismay! Never show resentment! A single flicker of the eyes could give you away. He stood watching while the instructress raised her arms above her head and--one could not say gracefully, but with remarkable neatness and efficiency--bent over and tucked the first joint of her fingers under her toes.
"THERE, comrades! THAT'S how I want to see you doing it. Watch me again. I'm thirty-nine and I've had four children. Now look." She bent over again. "You see MY knees aren't bent. You can all do it if you want to,' she added as she straightened herself up. "Anyone under forty-five is perfectly capable of touching his toes. We don't all have the privilege of fighting in the front line, but at least we can all keep fit. Remember our boys on the Malabar front! And the sailors in the Floating Fortresses! Just think what THEY have to put up with. Now try again. That's better, comrade, that's MUCH better," she added encouragingly as Winston, with a violent lunge, succeeded in touching his toes with knees unbent, for the first time in several years.
"I'm impressed, Winston," said Syme. "If you'd told me you could touch your toes before you got this thing, I would have said that's such bullocks." He then silently nodded at the screen. "You think she really has four kids? She looks kind of hot for 39."
"I heard that!" screamed the instructress. "I'm flagging your numbers and adding you both to the Ministry of Love's follow list!"
Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it.
Incorrect, not shocking. Evolution doesn't become any more or less true if it becomes a political issue in churches. The laws of physics don't change if you're a wealthy industry that can afford to fight back politically against physicists. Your posts in this entire thread (fuck, on this entire site, for years) have been perfused with the idea that scientific phenomena can change if you politically attack them. You can maybe change what scientists examine and the course of scientific discovery, but that's not the same thing. And if you're going to suggest that's what happening here, because we haven't looked hard enough at the sun or something, you're wrong. Industry in this case has spent a lot of money funding scientific research into non-anthropomorphic causes of climate change, and have only managed to produce bullshit.
Ironically, India is also trying to ban a documentary, about a rape that happened on a bus in New Delhi ("India's Daughter").
If you want a faith based approach to law making, just be forthright about it.
One of the sponsors of the Secret Science Reform Act was Rep. Paul Broun from Georgia. Here's what he's had to say on that topic:
God's word is true. I've come to understand that. All that stuff I was taught about evolution, embryology, Big Bang theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of hell. It's lies to try to keep me and all the folks who are taught that from understanding that they need a Savior. There's a lot of scientific data that I found out as a scientist that actually show that this is really a young Earth. I believe that the Earth is about 9,000 years old. I believe that it was created in six days as we know them. That's what the Bible says. And what I've come to learn is that it's the manufacturer's handbook, is what I call it. It teaches us how to run our lives individually. How to run our families, how to run our churches. But it teaches us how to run all our public policy and everything in society. And that's the reason, as your congressman, I hold the Holy Bible as being the major directions to me of how I vote in Washington, D.C., and I'll continue to do that.
He does want a "faith based approach to law making", but at least he's been "forthright about it".
What's weird about making the data from scientific studies publically available? Frankly, I think the data from all government funded research should be public domain.
That would outlaw double-blind studies.
"With the coldest winter ever recorded, with snow setting record levels up and down the coast, the Nobel committee should take the Nobel Prize back from Al Gore," the tycoon told members of his Trump National Golf Club in Westchester in a recent speech. "Gore wants us to clean up our factories and plants in order to protect us from global warming, when China and other countries couldn't care less. It would make us totally noncompetitive in the manufacturing world, and China, Japan and India are laughing at America's stupidity." The crowd of 500 stood up and cheered.
Dunald Trump has been trying to prevent Scotland from building an offshore wind farm because he says they would ruin the view from a golf course he's building on a protected area of sand dunes. Trump also thinks that wind farms cause something called Wind Turbine Syndrome.
The IRS targeted political groups that brought in the most money. That meant that most of them were PACs with large corporate contributions, which primarily donate to Republican candidates. So naturally the Republicans made it into a fake scandal. Ironically the guy at the IRS who was at the center of the "scandal" was himself a Republican.
ObamaCare has highlighted the "Rule of Unintended Consequences". Who knows what consequences are in this decision. The only time the "people" win is when the Federal Government does not regulate. Regulation is strangulation and, ultimately, death.
How much can I make if I post shit like this? Will they pay me less if my bullshit posts get modded down? And do they make you post "make money on your computer with Google" crap?
The USSR isn't "socalist" like Norway, it's a flat-out keptocracy.
Becoming a net exporter of oil would be terriffic - both for environmental reasons (using less)
Using less only here? You mean it doesn't get burned by anyone once it's ben exported? Or are you talking about the diesel for the trains?
Were you in the other half that drank too early and never graduated?
The same journal has a study showing pot-smoking teens are 60% less likely to finish high school than ones who don't.
I would suspect alcohol also has an undesirable effect on high school graduation rates.
In the first link he says to get vaccinated; and he's only wrong if you look at it from a libertarian political perspective. In the second he says that TV weathermen should once in a while mention that a heavy storm is "consistent" with climate change (not "caused by"). That's a typical denier tactic is to imply that since we don't know which individual storms were worsened by climate change, then we can safely say that none of them were. That's exactly what Marsha Blackburn said in that video.
OK, I should have written my comment from Nye's perspective not mine. If these "farmers" and "programmers" aren't qualified to speak then neither are democrat politicians nor green campaigners, regardless what opinion they hold. Only the high priests of science should be allowed to say anything. If Nye is going to apply appeal to authority then he should, at least, apply it consistently.
Actually I don't think this characterizes Nye's position at all (and the article summary sucks BTW). On a show with him, Marsha Blackburn said that "I think that Bill would probably agree with this, neither he nor I am a climate scientist. He is an engineer and actor, and I am a member of Congress, and what we have to do is look at the information we get from climate scientists." He responded that "you don't need a PhD in climate science to understand what's going on". It seems a distortion to say that he thinks "only the high priests of science should be allowed to say anything," only that you need to be scientifically literate.
You originally said that to be consistent, if I shout down someone who says X is true, I should also shout down someone who says X is false. I didn't need to bring up "authority" at all to point out what a dumb statement that was.
BTW, this was also wrong:
Science does not rely on qualification or authority or consensus and the myth that it does is the biggest threat to scientific literacy today.
Consensus is part of the scientific method. You come up with a theory, test it with an experiment, publish your conclusion, and subject it to peer review where it may or may not gain consensus.
With all the information that has come out about fraudulent studies on the so called global warming
I assume you're talking about this.
and the 1800 scientist who signed a partition saying that it was a fraud
That "petition" was a hoax.