Contemplating Peat As A Possible Right Winger

[luke gadget]

Narouz thank you for this post - I really appreciate the points. One of my biggest frustrations on many "alternative" forums is the willingness to accept conspiracy theories and junk science and truth - and loudly condemn anyone that doesn't go along with the herd.

So, climate change (the topic that brought me here) deniers quote thoroughly disproven quacks like Lord Monckton (the oil lobby swoons at his British accent), anti-vaxxers post utterly debunked graphs, government conspiracies make up silly crap about secret cabals, and politics seems to about who wants to break things the most. Almost all of it takes the form of something "they" are doing to "us"

I confess, I'm disappointed that Peat participates in some of this. I do know some of his positions are better nuanced than often framed. But it's enough to make me a bit more skeptical of some of his biological beliefs.

Anyway, I just want to say thank you for posting this. It's a lot of food for thought.

 

[narouz]

...So, climate change (the topic that brought me here) deniers quote thoroughly disproven quacks like Lord Monckton (the oil lobby swoons at his British accent)...

Still in the exploratory state,
but looking like I need to prepare for the worst (Peat for Trump)
or the worse (Peat for Monckton)
or a combo-bomb (Peat for Monckton and Peat).

I am still just beginning to research Monckton.
I've come across him from time to time in the past,
and been dubious, but never looked into him much.

I have another sortuv "sister thread" going here now on forum,
called "Lord Charles Monckton, Andrew Murray, and Dr. Ray Peat."
If you have anything to add to the Monckton viewpoints I've started posting,
please do so there as well.

 

[narouz]

No I haven't because the herb doctors are very annoying and they don't know how to interview someone or run a podcast. It's so hard to get through one of their shows. The reason why I still haven't posted that infamous Peat quote on butter from one of their shows is because it's so hard to listen to Andrew and Sarah's voice. But I have to force myself to do it because I want to find the quote. But I will listen to the ones you mentioned. But I don't think that based on what you said at the top about Peat saying something about Clinton that it means he's right wing. He's neither a leftist social justice warrior nor a right wing neo nazi. Although I have some nutritional disagreements with Peat, he's not dumb. He's too smart to be a leftist or a right wing-ist. Anyone in the world who claims to be only left or only right is dumb.

Westy-
If you do listen to the July,
keep your ears pricked up
trying to hear what is not being spoken explicitly.
The more I think about it,
it is reasonable to think of the whole show
as hovering around the veiled subject of Donald Trump.
It is election season.
Trump/anti-Trump fevers are running high.
(Andrew surely seemed a bit feverish.)
And I'm not willing to blind myself to the possibility
that Peat was just there, not siding with anybody.
Peat knows where Andrew is at with his right wing politics (gotta listen to the January show for this).
I think Peat knew what Andrew was driving at,
and...I strongly suspect Peat was lending support--
stepping in to deliver a blow to Hillary.

These are strange thoughts, I know.
I'm barely getting accustomed to them myself.

Maybe it's just a touch of the delusional fugue state.

 

[kyle]

This is from memory, but brain measurements showed lefties having smaller amygdala in lefties, and this was associated with more common PTSD.

Right wingers can tolerate more discomfort. Paradoxically they also detect threats more. I think this is why liberals like nice sounding platitudes rather than confronting enemies.

The climate change business was really fear laden. This might help explain why some topics get so emotionally charged in different ways.

Maybe niacinamide will help with the fugue state.

 

[narouz]

This is from memory, but brain measurements showed lefties having smaller amygdala in lefties, and this was associated with more common PTSD.

Right wingers can tolerate more discomfort. Paradoxically they also detect threats more. I think this is why liberals like nice sounding platitudes rather than confronting enemies.

And upthread you were explaining to me
how I was locked into some left-right heuristic!

The climate change business was really fear laden. This might help explain why some topics get so emotionally charged in different ways.

Given the projected consequences...reasonable to have some fear about this.
Lot's of us human beings all over the planet feeling this way.

Or you could "have the courage to do nothing" along with Lord Monckton....

 

[kyle]

Well, the heuristic rule being the automatic assumption that ideas/people associated with left/right are automatically discarded or approved of.

The point about the brain is only a theory about people's thinking styles. I interpreted it as some people assess threats differently.

I looked at the GW hypothesis ages ago and lost interest when I saw all the shenanigans...climate scientists were on payroll of various orgs, etc. I didn't think any thing sensible could be made from it.

 

[luke gadget]

Keep in mind that most of the "scientists are on the payroll" rhetoric comes from explicit denier think tanks, which are directly funded by right wing organizations - so it's important to dig down and see who is REALLY on the payroll.

 

[luke gadget]

Narouz, regarding Monckton, here's a random list of articles. There's a LOT more out there, but this is what I pulled up walking to work.

Lord Christopher Monckton Exposed Again As Fabulous Fabricator

Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch
Sourcewatch seems to be a handy info source in general.

Climate misinformer: Christopher Monckton
I really like Skepticalscience - they do a great job assembling data into one place.

Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet
Interesting site - it's a Republican decrying the denier tactics used by Republicans.

The Church of Monckton
Another from Bickmore. I thought this was a very true graf, that explains more than just climate denialism. It's long but I couldn't resist:

"The sorts of people who are Monckton boosters have one thing in common–they want to be perceived as the sort of no-nonsense iconoclasts who aren’t afraid to question the status quo. “So what if 97% of climate scientists think humans are significantly affecting the global climate? If you want me to believe it, you’re going to have to prove it to me!” they say. That would be fine, except that when we are dealing with a complex, technical subject, it generally takes several years of very hard work to get to the point where you can make informed judgements about conflicting expert opinions. Most people are way too lazy for all that work, so if they don’t want to defer to an overwhelming majority of the experts, they start pretending. That is, they find plausible-sounding sources of information that go against the status quo, and then pretend that their favored sources blow the consensus out of the water via an irresistible barrage of logic and facts. In reality, these people don’t have a clue who is right–they just pick whatever side fits their preconceived notions or political ideology. In doing so, they leave themselves wide open to be taken in by anyone who will tell them what they want to hear and make it sound “scientific” to a non-expert."

 

[narouz]

I looked at the GW hypothesis ages ago and lost interest when I saw all the shenanigans...climate scientists were on payroll of various orgs, etc. I didn't think any thing sensible could be made from it.

Sweet!
kyle + Lord Monckton = wallets & planet safe!

 

[narouz]

Keep in mind that most of the "scientists are on the payroll" rhetoric comes from explicit denier think tanks, which are directly funded by right wing organizations - so it's important to dig down and see who is REALLY on the payroll.

Indeed. 'tis a meme.

 

[narouz]

Narouz, regarding Monckton, here's a random list of articles. There's a LOT more out there, but this is what I pulled up walking to work.

Lord Christopher Monckton Exposed Again As Fabulous Fabricator

Christopher Monckton - SourceWatch
Sourcewatch seems to be a handy info source in general.

Climate misinformer: Christopher Monckton
I really like Skepticalscience - they do a great job assembling data into one place.

Lord Monckton’s Rap Sheet
Interesting site - it's a Republican decrying the denier tactics used by Republicans.

The Church of Monckton
Another from Bickmore. I thought this was a very true graf, that explains more than just climate denialism. It's long but I couldn't resist:

"The sorts of people who are Monckton boosters have one thing in common–they want to be perceived as the sort of no-nonsense iconoclasts who aren’t afraid to question the status quo. “So what if 97% of climate scientists think humans are significantly affecting the global climate? If you want me to believe it, you’re going to have to prove it to me!” they say. That would be fine, except that when we are dealing with a complex, technical subject, it generally takes several years of very hard work to get to the point where you can make informed judgements about conflicting expert opinions. Most people are way too lazy for all that work, so if they don’t want to defer to an overwhelming majority of the experts, they start pretending. That is, they find plausible-sounding sources of information that go against the status quo, and then pretend that their favored sources blow the consensus out of the water via an irresistible barrage of logic and facts. In reality, these people don’t have a clue who is right–they just pick whatever side fits their preconceived notions or political ideology. In doing so, they leave themselves wide open to be taken in by anyone who will tell them what they want to hear and make it sound “scientific” to a non-expert."

Thank you for that, luke!
I have come across some of those over in the "sister thread" I spoke earlier:
"Lord Christopher Monckton, Andrew Murray, and Dr. Ray Peat: Global Warming"

I may copy the list to that thread.
Please check out that thread, luke--it is more focused upon Monckton and global warming:
Lord Charles Monckton, Andrew Murray, And Dr. Ray Peat: Global Warming

 

[narouz]

In letting things steep in my (delusional fugue state) brain
over this last week or so...

I still haven't re-listened to the June Herb Doctors show.
KMUD: 6-17-16 Authoritarianism
Honestly, a bit traumatic...or at least depressing for me.
Not ready to return to it yet.

But just in letting things settle over time, and mulling.
And also mixing in the Monckton stuff from my first listen to the January Herb Doctors.
KMUD: 1-15-16 Water Quality, Atmospheric CO2, And Climate Change
And adding in things I've learned about Monckton...

Here is how my interpretation is shaping up:

1. Consider that it is the political season--U.S. Presidential campaign especially.
The topics were somewhat unusual, I'd think, for The Herb Doctors, in that the topics announced at the beginning of the show, or announced as the show unfolded, were pretty overtly political: "Political Correctness," "Freedom of the Press." And wasn't "Authoritarianism" also in the mix? I think so. Key word: political

2. Andrew was a bit riled up--emotional, impassioned. He jumped from one topic to the next without making clear connections and giving a distinct impression that he had something important in mind that he wouldn't spit out. Elephant in the room?

3. During this political season, of the candidates for President, which one's dog whistle is "Political Correctness"?
Donald Trump, no doubt.

4. What do we make of Andrew's dire warnings about our "Freedom of the Press" being imminently at risk? And urgently at risk--he said Americans may soon need to shed blood to defend it. However: he never specified what the nature of that threat was.
a) "Freedom of the Press" can very reasonably be said to point to Andrew's other topic, "Political Correctness." How so? Because one of the candidates for President has boasted over and over again that our Political Correctness here in the U.S. constitutes a major threat to the country. Probably the prime example Donald Trump repeatedly cites is Obama's failure to enunciate Trump's preferred term "Islamic radicals." Trump seems to believe that the only way to save our country is for him, with his mighty swift sword of heroic Political Incorrectness, to be elected President.
b) So two of the big topics announced by Andrew--
"Political Correctness" and "Freedom of the Press" mutually reinforce each other, and, by something like triangulation, point us squarely at Donald Trump. Not Gary Johnson, though Andrew did mention in passing that he is "probably more of a libertarian." Nope: both topics point strongly at Donald Trump.

5. Andrew said he likes things about Donald Trump.

6. Andrew talked--rather oddly, because a connection wasn't clear--about "The New World Order." For those of you unversed in right-winger conspiracy theory stuff (I too am a green-horn at it), "The New World Order" forms a gateway into a whole big world of right-wing conspiracy theory. We know that "Lord" Charles Monckton fears The New World Order in a big way. He sees it , for example, as being behind the whole "lie" of global warming. Global warming, in Monckton's view of course, is merely the natural doing of The Sun.

7. Peat said he too believes global warming, to the extent that has been proven to exist at all, is mainly due to The Sun. And he said this immediately after Andrew discussed at length his immense respect for Lord Monckton on the January Herb Doctors show. This left the distinct impression that Peat is taking his global warming science, at least in part, from Lord Monckton.

8. Peat jumped in (during the July show), after listening to Andrew make his ominous warnings about threats to our "Freedom of the Press" and about "Political Correctness"--to make a cut at Hillary Clinton: the only thing standing between Donald Trump and the Presidency of the U.S.

I am sorry to say...with those factors swirling about in my mind...I find it pretty reasonable to think that the July show was a kind of veiled coming-out party, a coming out party by Andrew, Sarah, and Dr. Peat--for Donald Trump.

It seemed clear that they did not want to make a straight-forward announcement. Maybe if our familiar caller had not flushed out Andrew and put the name "Donald Trump" on the table, that name never would have come up. I can imagine there are reasons why The Herb Doctors and Dr. Peat would want to avoid a direct endorsement of Donald Trump for President.

But it sure stacks up in my mind that
that it what the show was mainly about.

 

[luke gadget]

If - IF - it came out that Peat was a Trump supporter, I would have to sit down and breathe deeply for a few minutes. It would be a hell of a shock, and make me rethink the whole Peat 'thing' .

Conjecture upon conjecture here, but I'd probably justify it with a 'well, he's got some other big things to think about, maybe he's just not paying attention to day-to-day politics?'

Odds are though, they were all ardent Bernie supporters, and possibly still pissed at how things turned out. Maybe instead of it being about a person, their passion was about the issues - in the face of a disappointing loss.

 

[narouz]

I just wanted to note,
I may have--may still be, actually--getting the shows under discussion mixed up.
The Herb Doctors shows, that is.
I was thinking it was the July show where the bomb went off for me--
where Andrew talks about "Political Correctness" and "Freedom of Press"
and soon be called upon to shed blood,
and the familiar caller calls, calling him out on Donald Trump, etc etc...

I had been thinking that was July I believe, and noting it as such.
But then with my last post above,
when looking at our archive here on the forum
I saw that it is the June show that is called "Authoritarianism."
That is "the bomb" show--yes?

So...I think I may have been getting the June and July shows confused in this thread.

 

[narouz]

Odds are though, they were all ardent Bernie supporters, and possibly still pissed at how things turned out. Maybe instead of it being about a person, their passion was about the issues - in the face of a disappointing loss.

Yes, luke--and I noted that very possibility upthread somewhere.
However, that would seem to be only a good possible option for explaining Peat--
what with Andrew lauding Lord Monckton back, I recently discovered, in January.
That put the whole right-winger thing on the table for me.
And as I said, Peat followed on directly after Andrew in that show,
questioning whether global warming is happening,
and, if it's happening, The Sun seems to be the cause--
as per Monckton.

Have you listened to both shows--"Authoritarianism" and "Water Quality," I think, are the titles?
To see the whole picture,
you really need to listen.
It is a suggestive, circumstantial "case," I agree.
But...a pretty strong one, unfortunately.

 

[narouz]

If - IF - it came out that Peat was a Trump supporter, I would have to sit down and breathe deeply for a few minutes. It would be a hell of a shock, and make me rethink the whole Peat 'thing' .

That is where I've been, mentally, over the last week or so--defensively, I guess.
Absorbing a shock, preparing for a shock, re-evaluating, re-thinking....

 

[narouz]

I hope you've watched Clinton Cash before making claims that clinton is an angel compared to trump.....

I'm no supporter of Trump and luckily I'm from the UK so don't have to make a choice but Clinton's globalism is far more dangerous than Trumps nationalism.

I just want to continue to make some connections here,
in an effort to show a pattern.

Upthread, a poster--not Dex--recommended I read the historian Dr. Tom Woods.
Before reading him, I tried to learn a little about him.
I turned this up about him in Wiki.
Dr. Tom Woods belongs to, and was it seems, a founding member of,
The League of the South.
Here is a bit about the League of the South from Wiki:

(from Wiki)
The League of the South is a Southern nationalist organization, headquartered in Killen, Alabama, which states that its ultimate goal is "a free and independent Southern republic."[1] The group defines the Southern United States as the states that made up the former Confederacy.[2] It claims to be also a religious and social movement, advocating a return to a more traditionally conservative, Christian-oriented Southern culture. It advocates a "natural societal order of superiors and subordinates", using as an example, "Christ is the head of His Church; husbands are the heads of their families; parents are placed over their children; employers rank above their employees; the teacher is superior to his students, etc."[3] The organization has ties to the Italian separatist political group Lega Nord.[4]

The League of the South has been described as a white supremacist and white nationalist organization.[5][6][7][8]The Southern Poverty Law Center has designated the League of the South as a Neo-Confederate hate group.[9]...

The League defines Southern culture "in opposition to the corrupt mainstream American culture."[15] It sees Southern culture as profoundly Christian and pro-life.[16] Furthermore, the League believes that Southern culture places a greater emphasis on immediate relationships than on abstract ideas (the nation, the environment, the global community, etc.) and that Southern geography "defines character and worldview."[15] The League describes Southern Culture as being inherently Anglo-Celtic in nature (originating in the British Isles), and they believe the South's core Anglo-Celtic culture should be preserved.[4]

So we can see that Dr. Tom Woods is well-connected to a racial/cultural identity organization--
a group which believes in the values of white, Anglo-Celtic culture.
The League of the South also believes in the following values,
according to Max Boot, who reviewed a book by Dr. Tom Woods:

"... I was curious to learn more about its author. All the book tells you is that he has a bachelor's degree in history from Harvard and a Ph.D. from Columbia. A quick Internet search reveals that he is an assistant professor of history at Suffolk County Community College on Long Island, and a founding member of the League of the South. According to its website, the League "advocates the secession and subsequent independence of the Southern States from this forced union and the formation of a Southern republic." As an interim step before this glorious goal is achieved, the League urges its members to "fly Confederate flags at your residence or business every day" and to "become as self-sufficient as possible"--"if possible, raise chickens and keep a cow to provide eggs and dairy products for your family and friends." The League also counsels "white Southerners" that they should not "give control over their civilization and its institutions to another race, whether it be native blacks or Hispanic immigrants."

Okay. So we can see the connection of Dr. Tom Woods to white nationalism.

Remember, this thread is about the possibility that Dr. Ray Peat may be
connected with some forms of right-wing politics.
That is the context here.
And the context also includes Donald Trump,
who was explicitly discussed on the June Herb Doctors show--
Andrew Murray, the show's host, said he "likes some things about Trump,"
and I suspect that Trump hovers in the background of the show
in a veiled way
as a sort of "elephant in the room" unspoken subtext--indeed, the unspoken subject.

With all that in mind,
let's consider a recent development in the Trump campaign.
Trump has hired, as his campaign's Chief Executive Officer,
Steve Bannon.

Bannon funded the movie version of the book Clinton Cash--see beginning of this post.
(although I think there are inaccuracies in the book/movie, and I have said Hillary Clinton is not an ideal candidate, my interest here is to make the connection of Bannon to Clinton Cash.
Interestingly, the poster--Dex--with whom I began this post, is from the UK, former home also to Andrew Murray, about whom I will talk soon.)

Here is a paragraph on Bannon from The New York Times:

The website he runs, Breitbart News, recently accused President Obama of “importing more hating Muslims”; compared Planned Parenthood’s work to the Holocaust; called Bill Kristol, the conservative commentator, a “renegade Jew”; and advised female victims of online harassment to “just log off” and stop “screwing up the internet for men,” illustrating that point with a picture of a crying child.
http://www.nytimes.com/2016/08/18/us/politics/stephen-bannon.html?_r=0

...and this from The Washington Post...

Conservatives joked openly for months about “Trumpbart” and the transformation of Breitbart.com into, essentially, Bannon.com, but it was still something of a surprise that Trump would so publicly embrace Bannon, a man who helped transform a mainstream conservative website into a cesspool of the alt-right. It also comes as a surprise — or at least it should — that the Republican National Committee appears ready to go along with the Bannon-Breitbart-Trump takeover over the party, even as the Trump campaign’s latest move means RNC Chairman Reince Priebus now sits, effectively, side by side with alt-right Trump fans.

The takeover, now a virtual fait accompli, represents the dangerous seizure of the conservative movement by the alt-right.

Constitutional conservatives can’t stand the alt-right. Conservatives — real conservatives — believe that only a philosophy of limited government, God-given rights and personal responsibility can save the country. And that creed is not bound to race or ethnicity. Broad swaths of the alt-right, by contrast, believe in a creed-free, race-based nationalism, insisting, among other things, that birth on American soil confers superiority. The alt-right sees limited-government constitutionalism as passé; it holds that only nationalist populism on the basis of shared tribal identity can save the country. It’s a movement shot through with racism and anti-Semitism.
The Breitbart alt-right just took over the GOP

You will notice that I have highlighted, above, the term "Alt-Right."
It was a new one on me,
but I think it may be a valuable handle for us in this thread
as we speculate about what Ray Peat's possible connections
to what I have loosely called "right wing" politics.

There is much more to be said about Steve Bannon, Trump's new CEO.
Suffice to say for now,
when The Washington Post says, above,
that Bannon's Breitbart website is a "cesspool of the alt-right,"
that would seem to me a reasonable description.
We may want to learn more about this "alt-right" and Steve Bannon's ideas.

In my next post, I plan to make another possible connection to this "alt-right" current of politics,
which involves Andrew Murray,
one of The Herb Doctors,
an important subject here is this thread,
as it was Murray who framed the discussion
in the January and June Herb Doctor shows--
on which Peat appeared as guest,
and where Peat seemed to go along with Murray's anti-global warming ideas,
Murray's seeming support for Donald Trump,
and Murray's respect for the ideas of Lord Charles Monckton.

 

[luke gadget]

Narouz you might be interested in reading this guy:

Michael Arnovitz | Facebook

Michael Arnovitz writes very long and detailed commentary on mostly politics. What he does that I don't see enough of, is that he parses - in detail - the background of various charges and ideas. His latest post is very long, clarifying some thoughts on a previous article defending Clinton's appointment of Ken Salazar to head her transition team. So the topics are pretty obscure and perhaps not that interesting. But the gold is in how he explains WHY people think certain things, and he deconstructs the narratives used to define a particular position. THAT is the stuff worth reading.

 

[narouz]

Narouz you might be interested in reading this guy:

Michael Arnovitz | Facebook

Michael Arnovitz writes very long and detailed commentary on mostly politics. What he does that I don't see enough of, is that he parses - in detail - the background of various charges and ideas. His latest post is very long, clarifying some thoughts on a previous article defending Clinton's appointment of Ken Salazar to head her transition team. So the topics are pretty obscure and perhaps not that interesting. But the gold is in how he explains WHY people think certain things, and he deconstructs the narratives used to define a particular position. THAT is the stuff worth reading.

Thanks. luke.
I'll take a look!

 

[narouz]

Since we're talking about Peat possibly being a right-winger,
possibly supporting Trump for President...
And because Peat seems to agree, at least in part,
with Andrew Murray (of The Herb Doctors) and Lord Christopher Monckton
about global warming...

Not a big mystery, but I thought I'd get the Trump position(s) :>) represented in this thread...
Excerpted from a New Yorker digital article.

TRUMP’S ANTI-SCIENCE CAMPAIGN
By Lawrence M. Krauss
AUGUST 21, 2016
Over the past few months, we’ve seen Donald Trump lower, again and again, the bar for political discourse. All the while, though, he’s been lowering the scientific bar, too. In May, for instance, while speaking to an audience of West Virginia coal miners, Trump complained that regulations designed to protect the ozone layer had compromised the quality of his hair spray. Those regulations, he continued, were misguided, because hair spray is used mainly indoors, and so can have no effect on the atmosphere outside. No wonder Hillary Clinton felt the need to include, in her nomination speech, the phrase “I believe in science.”

Often, Trump is simply wrong about science, even though he should know better. Just as he was a persistent “birther” even after the evidence convincingly showed that President Obama was born in the United States, Trump now continues to propagate the notion that vaccines cause autism in spite of convincing and widely cited evidence to the contrary. (As he put it during a Republican debate, last September, “We’ve had so many instances. . . . A child went to have the vaccine, got very, very sick, and now is autistic.”) In other cases, Trump treats scientific facts the way he treats other facts—he ignores or distorts them whenever it’s convenient. He has denied that climate change is real, calling it pseudoscience and advancing a conspiracy theory that “the concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing noncompetitive.” But he has also filed a permit request to build a sea wall around one of his golf courses, in Ireland, in order to protect the property from global warming and its consequences. Which Trump is running for President?
...
On the level of party platforms, too, the differences are extreme. Perhaps in response to Trump’s candidacy, the 2016 Republican Party platform extends policy proposals that were, in 2012, already anti-science. The platform proposes eliminating the current Administration’s Clean Power Plan; prohibiting the E.P.A. from regulating carbon dioxide; officially declaring that climate change is “far from this nation’s most pressing national security issue”; and dissenting from international agreements such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Paris Agreement. The platform also claims that it is illegal to contribute to the U.N.’s Framework Convention for Climate Change and its Green Climate Fund because of the Palestinian Authority’s membership in the United Nations. It opposes embryonic-stem-cell research and human cloning for research purposes.

The positions taken by Trump and the Republicans have consequences beyond science itself. Essentially, they are betting that, for a significant portion of the country, empirical reality doesn’t matter; they are also signalling that empirical reasoning won’t be the basis of their public policy. Today, of course, we face global challenges such as climate change, which are more urgent than any we have ever confronted. These challenges require a sober assessment of reality. When science is distorted on the campaign trail, it may produce applause lines. But if those distortions lead to bad public policy, the quality of people’s lives will suffer.

-Lawrence M. Krauss is the director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University. He is chair of the board of sponsors of The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and is on the board of the Federation of American Scientists. His newest book, “The Greatest Story Ever Told . . . So Far,” will appear in March, 2017.
Trump’s Anti-Science Campaign - The New Yorker