![Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics Harvard](/img/default-banner.jpg)
- 175
- 376 774
Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics Harvard
United States
เข้าร่วมเมื่อ 30 พ.ย. 2012
The Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, established in 1986, is one of Harvard University's interfaculty initiatives under the auspices of the Provost's Office. It encourages teaching and research about ethical issues in public life and the professions, and helps meet the growing need for teachers and scholars who address questions of moral choice in practical ethics and in areas such as architecture, business, education, government, journalism, law, medicine, public health and public policy. In addition to the fellowships, the Center sponsors a public lecture series on applied and professional ethics and other events throughout the year.
Civil Disagreement Series: Academic Freedom, DEI, & the Future of Higher Education
Increasingly, concerns about maintaining academic freedom are being pitted against the efforts of diversity, equity, and inclusion programs on college campuses. In what ways can universities promote student, faculty, and staff wellbeing and cultivate belonging while remaining spaces for inquiry and free expression of ideas?
This panel discussion, co-sponsored by the FAS Civil Discourse Initiative, the Harvard College Intellectual Vitality Initiative, and the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, brought together those who hold differing views on questions about academic freedom and DEI in higher education, informed by their various experiences and expertise. Together with the audience, they examined the issues that motivate their differing views on the two topics and explored perspectives that are often overlooked. In the process, this series seeks to model best practices for effective dialogue across difference using techniques developed by the E&L Safra Center’s Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership.
Moderator:
Christopher Robichaud - Christopher Robichaud is Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Director of Pedagogical Innovation at the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics. He received his doctorate in philosophy from MIT. His interests surround ethics, political philosophy, and social epistemology, with a focus on examining the role of truth and knowledge in well-functioning democracies, and on understanding what the post-truth age of politics is.
Panelists:
Jeannie Suk Gersen - Jeannie Suk Gersen is the John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she has taught constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, family law, and the law of art, fashion, and the performing arts. Before joining the faculty in 2006, she served as a law clerk to Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court, and to Judge Harry Edwards on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was educated at Yale (B.A. 1995), at Oxford (D.Phil 1999) where she was a Marshall Scholar, and at Harvard Law School (J.D. 2002), where she was a Paul & Daisy Soros Fellow. She has written three books and many articles in scholarly journals and general media. Her book, At Home in the Law, was awarded the Law and Society Association’s Herbert Jacob Prize for the best law and society book of the year. She has been a Guggenheim Fellow and a recipient of Harvard Law School’s Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence. She is a Contributing Writer to The New Yorker.
Stacy Hawkins - Professor Stacy Hawkins is an award-winning teacher and scholar. She formerly served as the Vice-Dean of Rutgers Law School in Camden, where she also teaches courses in Constitutional Law, Employment Law and an original seminar on Diversity and the Law. She is the recipient of numerous honors, including the 2023 Chancellor’s Award for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Leadership, the 2022 BLSA Champion for Social Justice Award, and the 2018 AALS Derrick A. Bell Award. She was also named Faculty of the Year by the graduating class of 2013 and Co-Professor of the Year by the graduating class of 2018.
Amna Khalid - Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna developed a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks and writes frequently on academic freedom, free speech, DEI and campus politics. Her essays and commentaries have appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and The New Republic. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called Banished, which explores censorship in the past and present.
Ilya Shapiro - Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute. He is the author most recently of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites (forthcoming 2024), which examines the illiberal takeover of legal education. He is a member of the board of fellows of the Jewish Policy Center, is chairman of the board of advisers of the Mississippi Justice Institute, and previously served on the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
This panel discussion, co-sponsored by the FAS Civil Discourse Initiative, the Harvard College Intellectual Vitality Initiative, and the Edmond & Lily Safra Center for Ethics, brought together those who hold differing views on questions about academic freedom and DEI in higher education, informed by their various experiences and expertise. Together with the audience, they examined the issues that motivate their differing views on the two topics and explored perspectives that are often overlooked. In the process, this series seeks to model best practices for effective dialogue across difference using techniques developed by the E&L Safra Center’s Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership.
Moderator:
Christopher Robichaud - Christopher Robichaud is Senior Lecturer in Ethics and Public Policy at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government and Director of Pedagogical Innovation at the Edmond and Lily Safra Center for Ethics. He received his doctorate in philosophy from MIT. His interests surround ethics, political philosophy, and social epistemology, with a focus on examining the role of truth and knowledge in well-functioning democracies, and on understanding what the post-truth age of politics is.
Panelists:
Jeannie Suk Gersen - Jeannie Suk Gersen is the John H. Watson, Jr. Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, where she has taught constitutional law, criminal law and procedure, family law, and the law of art, fashion, and the performing arts. Before joining the faculty in 2006, she served as a law clerk to Justice David Souter on the United States Supreme Court, and to Judge Harry Edwards on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. She was educated at Yale (B.A. 1995), at Oxford (D.Phil 1999) where she was a Marshall Scholar, and at Harvard Law School (J.D. 2002), where she was a Paul & Daisy Soros Fellow. She has written three books and many articles in scholarly journals and general media. Her book, At Home in the Law, was awarded the Law and Society Association’s Herbert Jacob Prize for the best law and society book of the year. She has been a Guggenheim Fellow and a recipient of Harvard Law School’s Sacks-Freund Award for Teaching Excellence. She is a Contributing Writer to The New Yorker.
Stacy Hawkins - Professor Stacy Hawkins is an award-winning teacher and scholar. She formerly served as the Vice-Dean of Rutgers Law School in Camden, where she also teaches courses in Constitutional Law, Employment Law and an original seminar on Diversity and the Law. She is the recipient of numerous honors, including the 2023 Chancellor’s Award for Diversity, Equity & Inclusion Leadership, the 2022 BLSA Champion for Social Justice Award, and the 2018 AALS Derrick A. Bell Award. She was also named Faculty of the Year by the graduating class of 2013 and Co-Professor of the Year by the graduating class of 2018.
Amna Khalid - Amna Khalid is an Associate Professor in the Department of History at Carleton College in Northfield, Minnesota. She specializes in modern South Asian history, the history of medicine and the global history of free expression. Growing up under a series of military dictatorships, Amna developed a strong interest in issues relating to censorship and free expression. She speaks and writes frequently on academic freedom, free speech, DEI and campus politics. Her essays and commentaries have appeared in The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Conversation, Inside Higher Ed and The New Republic. She hosts a podcast and accompanying blog called Banished, which explores censorship in the past and present.
Ilya Shapiro - Ilya Shapiro is a senior fellow and director of constitutional studies at the Manhattan Institute. Previously he was executive director of the Georgetown Center for the Constitution, and before that a vice president of the Cato Institute. He is the author most recently of Lawless: The Miseducation of America’s Elites (forthcoming 2024), which examines the illiberal takeover of legal education. He is a member of the board of fellows of the Jewish Policy Center, is chairman of the board of advisers of the Mississippi Justice Institute, and previously served on the Virginia Advisory Committee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights.
มุมมอง: 361
วีดีโอ
"Supreme Court Ethics: Is the Court Really the ‘Least Dangerous Branch?" with Judge Mark L. Wolf
มุมมอง 1755 หลายเดือนก่อน
This event was co-sponsored with the Carr Center for Human Rights Policy. Abstract: Alexander Hamilton wrote that the courts would be the least dangerous branch of the government to be established by the Constitution. The Supreme Court’s new Code of Conduct for the Justices, among other things, prompts the question whether this is now true. Bio: Mark L. Wolf is a Senior United States District J...
2022 Lester Kissel Lecture in Ethics with Erin Kelly
มุมมอง 137ปีที่แล้ว
2022 Lester Kissel Lecture in Ethics with Erin Kelly
Civil Disagreement Series: Reproduction and Abortion in America
มุมมอง 342ปีที่แล้ว
Debates about reproductive rights and related policies raise critical questions about fundamental rights and liberties; issues of social, gender, and racial equality; access to health care; state, federal, and judicial power; and more. The recent Dobbs ruling has brought these complex and interconnected questions even further to the fore of our public discourse. For some, the shift towards a mo...
Civil Disagreement Series: Public Safety & Policing in America
มุมมอง 3892 ปีที่แล้ว
For some Americans, sustained and additional investments in police and prisons are seen as critical and necessary to ensure safety and justice for all citizens. On this view, enhanced support for law enforcement is key. Other Americans, however, call for reducing the scope of police function, focusing instead on alternative frameworks for reform or abolishing police departments altogether, advo...
Mala and Solomon Kamm Lecture in Ethics with Seth Lazar
มุมมอง 6912 ปีที่แล้ว
The Nature and Justification of Algorithmic Power: Algorithmic intermediaries increasingly mediate and govern our social relations, across commerce, politics, and sociality more broadly. In doing so, they exercise a distinct kind of intermediary power: they exercise power over us; they shape power relations between us; and they shape the social structures that those social relations constitute....
A Physician's Duty to Treat: Rethinking Medical Ethics in Carceral Spaces
มุมมอง 2462 ปีที่แล้ว
Incarcerated people in the U.S. suffer disproportionately from chronic health conditions, their acute medical needs often go unmet, and the carceral healthcare system that serves them is set up to fail by a lack of resources and infrastructure. The pandemic has only magnified the health crisis that is the norm in the U.S. prison system. Please join us for the second of the four-part event serie...
Annual Lester Kissel Lecture in Ethics with Pamela Hieronymi
มุมมอง 8112 ปีที่แล้ว
In this lecture titled "Defensiveness, Making Excuses, and the Blame Game," Professor Hieronymi will discuss how public life has recently seen some spectacular displays of defensiveness and seemingly unending iterations of the blame game. Yet, this set of issues has not received much attention in the philosophical literature. Here she begins to rectify the relative neglect. She will first disti...
Civil Disagreement Series: Guns in America
มุมมอง 7392 ปีที่แล้ว
For some Americans, guns are seen as important for safety and self-protection. Other Americans view guns as a critical threat to those very aims. Reflecting this debate, the number of guns owned by Americans has dramatically increased in recent years, and the demographics of gun owners have shifted. For example, gun ownership among communities of color, members of the LGBTQIA community, and wom...
Civic Education in Polarized Times: Day 2
มุมมอง 6062 ปีที่แล้ว
The annual conference of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, on Civic Education in Polarized Times, will be held virtually as a Zoom webinar on October 29-30, 2021. Panel I: 12:00-1:30 EDT Principal paper: Seana Shiffrin (UCLA, Philosophy), Democratic Civic Education and Democratic Law Commentator: Robert Tsai (Boston University, Law), Comments on Seana Shiffrin's Democrati...
Civic Education in Polarized Times: Keynote Address
มุมมอง 2012 ปีที่แล้ว
The annual conference of the American Society for Political and Legal Philosophy, on Civic Education in Polarized Times, will be held virtually as a Zoom webinar on October 29-30, 2021. Keynote Address by Dennis Thompson (Harvard University) and Sigal Ben-Porath (University of Pennsylvania), presenting a paper co-authored with Amy Gutmann (University of Pennsylvania). Co-Sponsors: Harvard Unive...
Public Action/Private Activities: Theorizing the Tensions of Democratic Leadership & Citizen Action
มุมมอง 2562 ปีที่แล้ว
How much can a democracy demand of its citizens? Is it ever permissible to force people to act to support the public good? Much contemporary discourse holds that participation is a matter of private choice. Yet serious attempts to deal with pressing public issues-from the COVID-19 pandemic, to racial injustice and policing-tend to hit a wall, in part thanks to a view of democracy that suggests ...
Public Lecture with Olufemi O. Taiwo, "Reconsidering Reparations"
มุมมอง 7K2 ปีที่แล้ว
Reparations for slavery have become a reinvigorated topic for public debate over the last decade. Most theorizing about reparations treats it as a social justice project-either rooted in reconciliatory justice focused on making amends in the present, or they focus on the past, emphasizing restitution for historical wrongs. Taiwo will argue that neither approach is optimal, and advances a differ...
Civil Disagreement Series: Responding to the Climate Change Crisis
มุมมอง 2073 ปีที่แล้ว
The Civil Disagreement Series is sponsored by the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics, in collaboration with Harvard University's Office of Diversity, Inclusion & Belonging. These moderated conversations bring together policy and subject experts from different political viewpoints to discuss a current-events topic. Our goal is to hold conversations that people may feel they can't otherwise have, ...
Inaugural Mala and Solomon Kamm Lecture in Ethics with Larry S. Temkin
มุมมอง 5933 ปีที่แล้ว
Our inaugural Kamm lecturer is Larry S. Temkin, Distinguished Professor of Philosophy at Rutgers University. In this talk, "Being Good in a World of Need," Professor Temkin will present some worries about global efforts to aid the needy in the world’s most desperate regions. Among the worries he addresses are: unintended negative consequences that may occur elsewhere in a society when aid agenc...
Public Lecture with S. Matthew Liao - November 19, 2020
มุมมอง 6633 ปีที่แล้ว
Public Lecture with S. Matthew Liao - November 19, 2020
Pandemic Resilience: Work and School - May 21, 2020
มุมมอง 1424 ปีที่แล้ว
Pandemic Resilience: Work and School - May 21, 2020
Annual Kissel Lecture in Ethics with Pamela Karlan - February 13, 2020
มุมมอง 1624 ปีที่แล้ว
Annual Kissel Lecture in Ethics with Pamela Karlan - February 13, 2020
Panemic Resilience: Testing - May 14, 2020
มุมมอง 1324 ปีที่แล้ว
Panemic Resilience: Testing - May 14, 2020
Laurence Ralph in Conversation with Danielle Allen - April 23, 2020
มุมมอง 9144 ปีที่แล้ว
Laurence Ralph in Conversation with Danielle Allen - April 23, 2020
Michael Sandel: A Conversation with Michael Rosen
มุมมอง 7K4 ปีที่แล้ว
Michael Sandel: A Conversation with Michael Rosen
Civil Disagreement on Immigration - November 7, 2019
มุมมอง 3084 ปีที่แล้ว
Civil Disagreement on Immigration - November 7, 2019
Keynote Lecture by Teresa Bejan - October 4, 2019
มุมมอง 2.3K4 ปีที่แล้ว
Keynote Lecture by Teresa Bejan - October 4, 2019
Public Lecture with Dean George Q. Daley - September 27, 2019
มุมมอง 3374 ปีที่แล้ว
Public Lecture with Dean George Q. Daley - September 27, 2019
Embedding Ethics by Ronni Gura Sadovsky
มุมมอง 3794 ปีที่แล้ว
Embedding Ethics by Ronni Gura Sadovsky
The Emergent Trends in the Teaching and Learning of Ethics (ETTLE) by Jess Miner and David Kidd
มุมมอง 1794 ปีที่แล้ว
The Emergent Trends in the Teaching and Learning of Ethics (ETTLE) by Jess Miner and David Kidd
"Ethics in Motion: A Process Oriented Approach to Teaching Ethics in (Technology) Design”
มุมมอง 1634 ปีที่แล้ว
"Ethics in Motion: A Process Oriented Approach to Teaching Ethics in (Technology) Design”
Teaching and Difficult Moments by Andrew Westover
มุมมอง 1934 ปีที่แล้ว
Teaching and Difficult Moments by Andrew Westover
"Arguing Ethics in a Classroom Setting" by Brian Palmiter
มุมมอง 3724 ปีที่แล้ว
"Arguing Ethics in a Classroom Setting" by Brian Palmiter
Stacy Hawkins is disingenuous. This is why I’d rather have just a conversation. Moderators interrupt flow of conversation. No one on the panel is saying diversity is the problem. It’s about how it’s being implemented. Yet Hawkins continually attacks straw man that others on the panel are against diversity.
1:05:31 completely blind to chilling effects of sexual harassment training thats exactly the same as academic freedom... men and women completely avoid interacting in meaningful work relationships as much as students and teachers avoid engaging in education
First, may I ask why aren't there more comments here? I just found Professor Charles Taylor a few months back, and I am trying to get a few of his books he has written, especially the one on Hegel. Professor Charles Taylor is brilliant with the educational background of choices he made in his college years and educator in later years. With much gradititude and respect for being able to listen to the discussion, including the Q & A .
I refuse to be made into a 2nd class citizen in the nation of my ancestors, while blacks defame my people with blood libel accusing them of every crime on the earth.
The black woman thinks it's an unassailable public good to dispossess white Christians of their land.
"Promo SM" 🤭
Thanks for the interview and conversation.
Very helpful overview of Taylor's thought -- he's putting it in the simplest terms here, and now we can go back and reread him with greater understanding.
I'm pro abortion.. At least she's honest
"Pro-life” believers say it’s about saving a human life, but it is not. It is about the pregnancy. If they cared about human life, they would pour energy into robust development of adoption agencies, social support for needy families, education, and general welfare of all children so no child would be born with the risk of poverty and poor educational opportunities.Pro-life is all about forcing everyone to the same set of rules. Kind of like forcing women to wear a burka and only travel in the company of a male relative.If the anti-abortion people really cared about reducing abortions rather than forcing people to abide by their rules, they would work to make family planning and contraception free to all women in the United States (and vasectomies for men). If there are no unwanted pregnancies, the number of abortions would plummet.John Messmer, MD, Hummelstown, Pa.“Pro-life” is not about saving a life | PennLive letters share.newsbreak.com/21y2awlv
It's not pro life it's forced pregnancy forced birth, no one cares about anyone who's alive
Stop forced birth crazy ass meddling twits! No forced pregnancy, no forced birth! Women are not brood mares! women will have babies when they are ready! they finished college, have a good career and a nice husband
Reasons for abortion: 👋👋👋👋👋👋👋👋 What about young women who aren’t ready to have a child? What about women who’ve been raped? What about women whose pregnancy threatens their life? What about women who can’t afford to raise a child? What about women in abusive relationships? What about women too poor to raise another child? What about women who will still try to have a back-alley abortion that could end up killing them? What about women who would have to leave school to raise the child because they’re single mothers? What about women whose careers would be ruined because of how we’ve set up our capitalist society? What about women who know their child will be born with an incurable illness? What about women who believe that bringing another life into a world where born lives are treated worse than unborn lives is unfair? What about women who believe it’s their right to choose?
So, why demand women have children they do not want & cannot afford? Anti-abortion Zealots are all gooey-eyed about Fetuses. Insist all be born. Among the worst things that can happen to an infant is to be born into a home that does not want them; "doubly worse" if that home is one of poverty. Unwanted, underprivileged children do not often grow into solid, well educated, hard working, productive law-abiding citizens. Many become sullen, resentful, semi literate, non-productive and outright dangerous. The Far Right makes no sense in this double think. Let the people who don't WANT children, NOT have them!
"The unborn" are a convenient group of people to advocate for. They never make demands of you; unlike orphans, they don't need money, education, or childcare; they allow you to feel good about yourself without any work at creating or maintaining relationships; and when they are born, you can forget about them, because they cease to be unborn. It's almost as if, by being born, they have died to you. You can love the unborn and advocate for them without substantially challenging your own wealth, power, or privilege, without re-imagining social structures, apologizing, or making reparations to anyone. They are, in short, the perfect people to love if you want to claim you love Jesus but actually dislike people who breathe. Prisoners? Immigrants? The sick? The poor? Widows? Orphans? All the groups that are specifically mentioned in the Bible? They all get thrown under the bus for the unborn."
Whatever gets you through the night. Honey
Goood job:)!! Do not waste your time > Promo-SM !!
BULLSHITTERS ARE DESPICABLE. Truly VERY DESPICABLE. How do bullshitting and bullying relate to one another? What percentage of bullies are bullshitters, and what percentage of bullshitters are bullies? Political life and corporate life are replete with bullies and bullshitters. If so agreed, who would argue that we are better of for it or worse of. Of course, to me, much worse of for it. BULLSHITTERS AND BULLIES LOWER THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN POLITICAL LIFE AND IN CORPORATE LIFE. I taught mathematics for over two years in middle school and in high school, and two of those students (the only ones who told me that they wanted to be lawyers) told me THAT THEY WANTED TO BE LAWYERS BECAUSE THEY WERE GOOD BULLSHITTERS. How representative is it among lawyers that they became lawyers because they believed that they were good bullshitters? Perhaps in disagreement with Harry Frankfurt, I contend that if you are a lawyer or a used car salesman, any time that you engage in bullshitting in pursuit of your ends, you (lawyer, used car salesman, or other) are being antisocial, immoral, and unethical; and at times unlawful. The space between PROFESSIONALISM and BULLSHITTING is a null space: PROFESSIONALISM AND BULLSHITTING ARE MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE: THEY ARE (I perceive) AS TOTALLY INCOMPATIBLE. Again: BULLSHITTERS AND BULLIES LOWER THE QUALITY OF LIFE IN POLITICAL LIFE AND IN CORPORATE LIFE, and civic minded people should deliberately make an effort to raise our social discourse and make bullies and bullshitters not welcome. Is bullshitting ever morally/ethically neutral, perhaps only in non-serious matters such as entertainment, comedy, and the like. Otherwise, I perceive it as always crapping the 'social slate' (the grand and universal social slate) that we all write on when we utter or write. It is not nice to polluted that important social slate that we all depend on for all the serious matters of life!! Ultimately, this is a reflection of our social immaturity referring to the percentage of humanity in a low level of emotional/psychological/ethical immaturity. AND SO WHAT TO DO? Harry G. Frankfurt said "Respect for the truth and a concern for the truth are among the foundations for civilization. I was for a long time disturbed by the lack of respect for the truth that I observed... bullshit is one of the deformities of these values." (On Bullshit Part 1 in TH-cam - th-cam.com/video/W1RO93OS0Sk/w-d-xo.html. Bullshit is an assault to civilized living. It is AN ASSAULT TO JUSTICE. JUSTICE IS BASED ON TRUTH. BRING IN BULLSHIT AND LIES TO THE JUSTICE PROCESS AND YOU ERODE JUSTICE. YOU ERODE IT SYSTEMICALLY AND SPECIFICALLY (in some specific, individual case.) BULLSHIT IS ANATHEMA TO CIVILIZED LIVING!
How many times has Simone Gubler had students physically attack each other in academic discourse? (not (merely)" get angry"...which is not nearly the same thing...) I'm curious and would appreciate a response...(I do speculate that that's a relatively irrational fear on her part...)
-Oh, and Simone, the Second Amendment is codified for the purpose of defense against tyranny.. it merely >extends< from a more fundamental right of >self< - defense.) EDIT: -And if you think that impractical, a mere 10% of the population marching on Tyrannical installations would constitute >30 MILLION people... overwhelming.
-Sadly, Simone, you are the object of my comments,... my regrets. 'But when you said "I defer to the Const. scholar" , you revealed yourself as a technocrat, this is antithetical to democratic beliefs, that all men are created equal. You may think more (or less) deeply on a topic, but that does not negate, nor indeed diminish, the validity of one's (your), opinion.
The mayor: guns are bad. I'm pro second amendment and only want to go after illegal guns after I make all guns illegal. Me: This is a mayor? Good lord.
The gun violence in Australia did not go down that much and now they can't defend themselves from their goverments
Thank you antonino. 😊
Clark does what all libertarians do when confronted by the left; he rolls over and shows his belly in submission. When confronted by the right, they go scorched earth because libertarians are just progs who want slightly lower corporate tax rates
Mayor Maria has no business in this conversation
Raped on a train. For more than 40 minutes, a woman was harassed by a stranger on a public transit train in Philadelphia and then raped while bystanders held up their cellphones, seemingly to record the assault, police said. Your fellow human beings folks. Not only did they fail to help this woman, they had such a lack of empathy for her, they could pull their phones out to record the attack for future social media postings! More than two dozen train stops passed as the man harassed, groped and eventually raped the woman, the police chief for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority said at a news conference Monday. I'll say it again, unfortunately people are afraid to realize that the idea of being safe is an illusion in society. The reality is, to put it in the simplest terms, you're safe as long as the person standing next to you doesn't decide to kill you. That's not paranoia it's just an obvious fact. You know what would have empowered this poor woman to stop her stronger, bigger, male attacker??? A firearm, it would have made his choice to assault her because of his perceived power over her a bad choice. And hopefully he'd never be assaulting and raping any other women again! Just sayin...
1) By reflecting away 30% of ISR the albedo, which would not exist w/o the atmosphere/GHGs, makes the earth cooler than it would be without that atmosphere like that reflective panel set behind the windshield. Remove the atmosphere/GHGs and the earth would become much like the Moon and Mercury, a barren rock with a 0.1 albedo, 20% more kJ/h, hot^3 on the lit side, cold^3 on the dark. Nikolov, Kramm (U of AK) and UCLA Diviner mission all tacitly agree. 2) the GHG up/down welling, “trapping”/”back” radiating/delaying/intercepting, 100 % efficient, perpetual warming loop requires "extra" energy which according to RGHE theory comes from 3) the terrestrial surface radiating that "extra" energy as a LWIR ideal black body which 4) cannot happen because of the non-radiative heat transfer processes of the contiguous atmospheric molecules and as demonstrated by experiment, the gold standard of classical science: principia-scientific.org/debunking-the-greenhouse-gas-theory-with-a-boiling-water-pot/ 1+2+3+4 = 0 Greenhouse Effect + 0 Greenhouse gas warming + 0 man caused climate change. Version 1.0 041321
*Censored Climate Science Knowledge Test* Q Name all of the gases in our atmosphere that do not participate in convection cooling and *through mass mechanical energy transmission,* also known as the Newton’s Cradle Effect. A None. They all participate. Q What gases in our atmosphere block heat loss? A None. You cannot stop heat loss unless you build a glass or plastic wall surrounding the Earth to block convection cooling and the Newton’s Cradle Effect. No free flowing gas can trap heat and be used as insulation. Q What are the names of the four scientists who destroyed the greenhouse gas theory? A Dr. Michael Connolly and Dr. Ronan Connolly in Ireland, and Dr. Ned Nikolov and Dr. Karl Zeller in Colorado, USA. Q Why is this good climate news not reported by our media? A Because our media censors real climate science derived from the proper use of the scientific method. The scientific method demands hard certifiable, repeatable evidence, not speculation, wild computer models fed false assumptions, and the mindless repeating of unproven conjecture from past centuries. Hysteria, politics, group-think, and religious fervor are not part of the scientific method. All of those things are part of the totalitarian domination method. Q Is there a mathematical way to predict the average baseline surface temperature of rocky surfaced planets and moons in our solar system? A There is only one way. You need to find out two main facts: their distance from the Sun, which tells us how much solar energy they receive, and their average global atmospheric pressure. With that information you can accurately predict average baseline surface temperatures to within one degree Celsius. Q Do cow farts, SUVs, and overweight opera singers cause hurricanes and global warming? A No. Real air pollution, such as smoke, causes a minor cooling effect by blocking sunlight. To increase Earth’s temperature you would have to increase atmospheric pressure or block cloud formation. We do not have the technology to do either of those things. What keeps Earth warm is our global planetary atmospheric pressure. The FORCE of gravity on atmospheric mass creates a heating effect that keeps our oceans from freezing to the equator. That is why the bottom of Death Valley is always warmer than the top of Mount Everest. Higher air pressure causes higher temperatures. Lower air pressure causes lower temperatures. For the real climate science censored by our media, Google *The Renewable Energy Disaster + Christopher Calder + 50webs*
Harvard should organize a discussion between Sandel and Taylor