Slashdot Mirror
Congress Hears From Muzzled Scientists
BendingSpoons writes "More than 120 scientists across seven federal agencies have been pressured to remove the phrases 'global warming' and 'climate change' from various documents. The documents include press releases and, more importantly, communications with Congress. Evidence of this sort of political interference has been largely anecdotal to date, but is now detailed in a new report by the Union of Concerned Scientists. The House Oversight and Government Reform Committee held hearings on this issue Tuesday; the hearing began by Committee members, including most Republicans, stating that global warming is happening and greenhouse gas emissions from human activity are largely to blame. The OGR hearings presage a landmark moment in climate change research: the release of the 2007 report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. The IPCC report, drafted by 1,250 scientists and reviewed by an additional 2,500 scientists, is expected to state that 'there is a 90% chance humans are responsible for climate change' — up from the 2001 report's 66% chance. It probably won't make for comfortable bedtime reading; 'The future is bleak', said scientists."
But nothing. Republicans? Shut the fuck up.
No, seriously. Shut the fuck up. I'm sick and tired of the obfuscation. I'm sick and tired of the lying. I'm sick and tired of you useful idiots towing the party line. I look outside, I see the difference in the weather, I see the results that people were warning us about twenty years ago, and it scares the shit out of me.
Republicans? SHUT THE FUCK UP and let the rest of us try to DO something about this.
When the current administration was was securing their win, a lot of promises were made in order to fuel (pardon the pun) the race for securing the last reserves. The momentum needed to be there for big investment to take place to secure wins and deliver on those promises made. So with that being considered, it stands to reason, you don't want bad advertising in the form of alarming factual statistics being relased by the scientific community being released and hindering the fund security for isolating the last of the worlds petroleum, right? So the cover was thickened. A massive veil of 'turn-the-other-cheek' was set in place in order to ensure that financial gain could be had.
Now that the whole Charade is under fire from every thing to the administrations take on the environment, space, and that god damned war, people are beginning to lift the corners of the rug where this stuff had been swept under. Unfortunately, what's been found continued to rot while it was being hidden. Now it's even more harsh to deal with. In the end, the deals been exposed, the plug's getting pulled, and I couldn't be happier about it. Just too bad a few of us were saying things like this were going to happen since back in the 70's. It's just unfortunate that we had to have an acceleration period in the last 10-20 years to solidify the problem. And too bad the delicate cycle of the Earth has been damaged permanently as a result of man's greed and quest for senseless power and control.
Interesting that the health of our world is being decided by politicialns, rather than the scientists that study this kinda stuff. I sure hope some sensemaking comes of this. Why is it now my fault that scientists aren't taken seriously by this administration?
Can I declare politics to be illegal and akin to terrorism?
Zhrodague.net - I do projects and stuff too.
A genuinely free-market Republican administration would surely want the truth about climate change to be readily available so that the markets could respond appropriately and make capital and resources available for the inevitable re-shaping of society, rather than be associated by similarity of behaviour with the guys in funny skirts who inadvertently helped the Protestants take over the world.
Pining for the fjords
And BTW - regardless of whether or not global warming is fact or (incredibly unlikely) fiction, why the HELL do we need a reason to reduce carbon emissions, waste-per-person and tree felling? Surely doing any of these is a good thing for us all anyway. Cleaner air and forests for our children to explore should be reason enough.
Work smarter, not harder.
I'd argue that the president and his minions are very well taking a stance.
By intentionally shutting up scientists and censoring them.
ich bin der musikant
mit taschenrechner in der hand
kraftwerk
I don't know what it is, but when you talk to other scientists about a topic, while they're excited about it, they don't predict doomsday even if it's possible. But when you talk to a climate scientist, it's the only thing on their mind. Either the basic teachings in the science are turning out nuts, or they're right. I guess the biggest issue is the fact that the climate scientist doomsday clock has been running for well over 30 years, but we're all still here and all we have to show for it are some hurricanes of a force that the world *has* seen before, and a few chunks of ice that have been perilously hanging over the sea for years finally dropping in. So I, like so many others, have stopped listening to the sirens from the Wahhhhhhmbulance and, instead, have decided to wait until something bad actually happens in my own backyard. Sucks, but, like so many others, my attention span isn't that long.
The moral of the story is the boy who cries wolf, even when he thinks he's right, but turns out mistaken gets ignored the same way as the boy who cries wolf because he's a jerk.
Is the government shutting up private researchers? No. It's as simple as letting the American people do what is necessary, and the government staying out of it until it becomes a national concern that cannot be dealt with.
I would imagine that you can be clumped into the group of people that think enacting environmental protection laws will curb global warming? I'm not sure when our nation's ego got so big that we think we can change the world with our laws.
Agreed. Nothing is more annoying than hearing people say "It is cold outside today, Global Warming must not be real". ARGHHHHHH
We haven't heard enough from "the sky is falling" crowd.
... why won't these loudmouths just shut up already?
Yeah, that stupid "'sky is falling' crowd." Such idiots! Also the "'pi is irrational' crowd," the "'Earth goes around the Sun' crowd," the "'infectious disease is caused by microbes' crowd," the "'current species evolved from previous species' crowd"
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
I fail to see the logic in this "boohoo, China and India doesn't have to limit their exhaust as much as we do, so let's not join!".
I thought that the United States of America was superior to those lesser regimes, and was supposed to treat its inhabitants better? Whatever happened to that?
c++;
Sure, it will "correct" itself. The problem in this case is that the cure might not be very fun for us living on it at the moment, or in the future as well.
c++;
Scientists on Earth have noted the following:
1. Earth's polar cap ice is getting thinner, thus leading credence to "global warming", and is probably TRUE.
2. Mar's polar ice cap is getting thinner over the last half century, thus leading credence to...um...global warming.
3. Since there are humans on Earth, but no plants or people on Mars, there is a strong suspicion that increased Solar activity is the culprit.
Amazing things are found by scientists, as long as they get their noses out of their offices.
Give me the Aristotle, Pasteur or Darwin of Climatology who can present irrefutable proof
Pssst!.... don't tell anyone but none of them ever had irrefutable proof. They simply made observations, thoerized on the cause, found problems with the thoeries, refined those thoeries, etc, etc, etc.
I don't think science is what you seem to think it is.
"reality has a well-known liberal bias" - Steven Colbert
Wait for it....wait for it...
This statement is in the passive voice. No one is directly referred to here. The problem with this? The poster makes a statement and forces assumptions on who has been putting this pressure of censorship. I am not sure which is worse--deliberate censorship or subtle trickery as is in the first line of the "summary." I am not some Republican good buddy here to bash global warming theory or anything, but the summary is nothing but flamebait.
The Earth is a huge steady state system and it has corrected itself EVERY time in the past.
The first part of your claim is not only false, it is contradicted by the second part of your claim. "Steady state" systems do not need to undergo "corrections". Dynamically stable systems do.
The Earth is a huge dynamically stable system, and it has corrected itself EVERY time in the past. That is a true statement, but an uncomfortable one, because the Earth's dynamically stable climate undergoes excursions that are quite significant relative to the stability required for human civilization to thrive.
Even local events like the Younger Dryas can ruin your whole millenia. Global events like ice ages, or the mode switching to a hot, dry climate for a few hundred or a thousand years that we see in some ice core data, can make things very uncomfortable indeed.
Scientists are concerned about global climate change not because we are worried about the "end of all life on Earth" or some equally algorean kookery, but because we know with certainty that the Earth's climate maintains a dynamic equilibrium that will happily accomodate excursions that would make a mess of our lives and our descendent's lives, and we know with certainty that we are giving that dynamically stable system a nice wack with a hammer by increasing effective insolation by a percent or so over the past two hundred years.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
Ummmm, right... That's a good plan. Economically present yourself to the international community for castration.
IF they want to propose rules, then present a flat playing field where no-one derives an economic, political, or strategic advantage, or it's not a tenable solution.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
It's a bit like the same reason someone spends $1000/foot for an audio cable and honestly believes it sounds superior. Self-delusion. Taking care of the environment would need the republican to perhaps get a smaller car (which means a smaller penis), or even share the car with another person, aka "bus". He would also have to pay more for his energy, and waste disposal. These are not very fun things to do if you value money a lot, thus, in order to protect themselves, the brain actually makes you believe what's best for you to be the right thing.
c++;
On point 1, well, actually, if you're working as a researcher, poking into random topics around your area of research is a fairly major part of your job. It's not like we're told "Research blah", then we enter a meditative state until we develop enlightenment on blah, we go out and look into blah, and topics related to blah, and sometimes that means we bump into other topics.
Let's not forget the "'Global Cooling' crowd" and the "'Population Explosion Causing the End of Civilization by 2000' crowd." We narrowly dodged those bullets!
...but it's one that is widely addressed. Solar intensity is certainly variable. It's also easily measurable. So here's the question: given how much more energy we're getting from the sun, are we as warm as we expect to be? The answer is currently no. We're warmer than we can account for by solar intensity alone.
Responsible scientists are not simply talking about warming. They're talking about climate change that is both more complex than simply "it's warmer" and they're talking very specifically about change that they can't account for when they take everything else they know about into account. Natural greenhouse emissions (methane, CO2), solar intensity, how long you leave your XBox 360 on, etc... if it's warmer than we expect from all of those things, then we've got issues.
I think it's the Christian leaning most conservatives have.
They believe the earth and everything on it is here for them to use. Burning lots of fossil fuels is their god-given right. The fact that there might actually be repercussions to this might (just maybe) indicate that they cannot, infact, use all of earths resources however they please.
This unfortunately is the kind of logic that makes rational argument about environmental policy nearly impossible:
A believes fact X justifies policy P.
B believes policy P is wrong.
B therefore denies fact X.
What is wrong with this picture?
I don't deny for a moment that there are still a lot of watermellons in the green movement, but the above argument is simply a logical fallacy of the kind commited by people who care more about their politics than the facts.
True greens recognize that imposing coercive limits on human behaviour is unsustainable. And we also recognize that markets are one of the most effective tools for changing human behaviour and gaining large efficiencies (which so long as they don't depend on contaminating or otherwise abusing the commons are also environmental efficiencies.)
It is only when greens shed their lefty image and non-greens start making arguments based on fact rather than politics that the debate will get anywhere.
Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
I agree. They're like the people who say, "It's warm this month. Global warming is real."
JOIN US FOR PONG!
From the Senate:
There are opposing positions to Al Gore's propaganda movie, "An Inconvenient Truth." There are opposing views that should be discussed.
No one diputes the fact that the Earth is warming. However, there is not scientific consensus that it is caused, or substantially increased, by humans. The inconvenient truth that Gore fails to mention is that about 10,000 years ago, the Earth was so warm that citrus fruits were growing in what is now northern Germany.
There were no cars and precious few people to cause the Earth to be so warm. That period was followed by an ice age. When the ice age ended, the Earth began warming, and has been warming ever since. It will continue to warm, until another ice age occurs.
Many publications on global warming deliberately leave out these facts, so as to lend credence to the theory that we are causing global warming. The culprit is not the Earth's habitants; it is the sun, which we sometimes see in the Pacific Northwest. The Earth has been in a continual cycle of heating and cooling, and there is nothing we can to about it. That's another "inconvenient truth."
Muzzling attempt?
Check out this blog post from James Spann:
From his blog - his bio:
Official bio here
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
The situation in the UK is entirely reversed. The government has wholeheartedly jumped on the man-made climate change bandwagon and is milking it at every opportunity. Extra taxation is being liberally applied to anything even remotely related to carbon dioxide emissions (just today, taxation on passenger air travel doubled).
However, an equal investment isn't being put towards improving public transport (which is truly horrendous in the UK).
I'd be wary of what you ask of the US government - it may be all too easy for them to follow the UK government's lead and just start using "climate change" as an excuse to extract cash from the populace.
I read the other replies to your post and I find it funny that 3 out of the 4 were people that have no idea why people might not like the Green agenda, but they sure do have an axe to grind with their preconceived notions of the Republican party.
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies. Examples include Paul Erhlich, Rachel Carlson, Al Gore (with much support by the scientific community.) and whoever that guy was who predicted the worst hurricane season in 50 yrs for 2006.
2.The argument is hardly, if ever, presented in a logical, coherent manner. Usually, it consists of a list of demands that (coincidentally?) line up with socialists and communists. See: the Kyoto protocol. It attempts to impose an aggressively progressive tax code on emissions, and consumption. If we don't like progressive taxes already, what makes you think that we'd like that sort of 'productivity punishment' applied to our country?
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back. In Oklahoma, your chances of those panels paying for themselves are very probably slim. Gets worse as you go north. For the American SouthWest, they are probably a good investment.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds. (Maybe the birds will figure out that the windmill farm isn't such a great place to hang out.) Ted Kennedy opposed a windmill farm off of Martha's Vineyard as it would've obstructed their view.
So, if the environmentalists got together and started presenting tenable solutions to our problems, then they might get more reception. For me, I understand that there's global warming, might be anthropogenic, might not... (not's seem to be getting slimmer) but until someone proposes a real idea on how to deal... we'll just deal in the way we always have. Adapt.
Note: One of our saving graces could've been nuclear power, but the greenies shot that down too. Sucks that South Africa is using american developed technology in a pebble bed reactor. Look at the CA power crisis, while part of it was caused by collusion on the part of energy traders, it was enabled by CA's stance on building new plants. In fact, the newest power plant to provide CA with power was just built in NV. NIMBY-ism has killed several things that could make the world a more efficient place, but finding a backyard to put "it" in is rather difficult.
The definition of being "conservative" is not wanting things to change.
Global warming, if true, forces us to face changing most of our current way of life.
Personally, I think this traditional conservatism is just wrong. It's not a useful way to approach life, struggling against everything new that happens. But it is very human.
For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert. - Arthur C. Clarke
You seem to be too stupid to understand the notion of consequences, so here's how it goes down: global warming == grave national threat. Think about it -- the feds can combat terrorism, and all terrorists can do is (at best) murder people and destroy infrastructure. Global climate change can utterly impoverish America and make it a supplicant nation, dependent on others for basic food-stuffs while half the population lives in shantytowns after having to abandon their flooded hometowns, and 10% of the workforce is unable to work because they have drug-resistant malaria.
I'd say that any president who DOESN'T make global climate change their business is not just stupid and incompetent, they're also a traitor. Frankly, it's kind of surprising that you would hold your president to a lower standard of accountability that you would a hobo or, say, a dead raccoon.
And how do you know this? Did you learn it from a true climate expert such as a talk radio host?
I am slightly stunned by your choice of examples - I mean look how over stated the danger of AIDs was, there are only 10s of millions of sufferers globally, it has only ravaged half of Africa. And what about smoking - possibly the single most dangerous lifestyle choice in terms of it's impact on your health - which part of it causing lung cancer and heart disease do you not understand? Do you know how many children die globally each second from starvation?
You have just given us a great example of Republican logic - if it doesn't directly impact you it cannot be happening. Just keep your head in the sand about climate change as you obviously have about every other problem...
I can only speak for myself. I am a scientist and engineer - a lot of my resistance comes from my disdain for the fact that this debate is being conducted using the uninformed masses as pawns rather than within the scientific community. I don't like setting a prescident that we do science by consensus. I suspect that many of the advocates for global warming are really just environmentalists frustrated that their previous conservation messages have failed to resonate and that this is their new banner. I also know full well that the earth has regularly undergone significantly greater temperature deltas over its history so find it hard to believe that this recent very small warming period is anything other than statistical noise (i.e. warming but within naturally occurring bounds). Show me plots with error bars on them and maybe I'll pay attention. Of course, the assumption there is that I trust your error analysis which I probably won't . Finally, I don't believe in scientists with agendas - it interferes with the scientific process. I don't trust an environmental activist's research on global warming any more than I would big oil's or trust the tobacco companies to do unbiased research on second-hand smoke. I don't like that activist groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists use the name of their organization to neutralize their radical messages. There may be some very good research at sites like RealClimate but I don't like having science shouted at me. Honestly, if the fanatiscism and zealotry were taken out of the equation, I'd be much more likely to look at their research.
But that's just me.
"It takes considerable knowledge just to realize the extent of your own ignorance." - Thomas Sowell
People modded it down because it at least seems to be deliberate misinformation. Deliberate because the amount of effort that appears to go into it suggests someone who could have taken the time to answer the very questions he raised. This is one of the typical strategies of global warming deniers. Try to spread doubt amongst those who aren't capable of understanding the science. You'll notice that his post followed the typical formula to a T.
The somewhat funny part is that these strategies actually work against each other, except for the main point - to sow confusion and doubt.
Ben Hocking
Need a professional organizer?
Things are not quite as bad as you imagine. For one thing, reductions in energy use by buildings are actually pretty easy. Other areas of the transportation system can be improved; for instance, there are places where passenger rail transport could easily be substituted for air transport. In the long term, yes, it does probably mean a gradual process of reshaping cities, but that can perhaps be done over two generations so as to lessen cost and effort.
You complain about "spend[ing] a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back". Well, yes, but you get your future back. You just want it free. Sorry, guy. That engineering can't accomplish. And nuclear power, safe or not, isn't cheap, not when all the costs of securing the nuclear fuel chain are accounted for--the best energy source, given our current practices, is conservation, the energy we don't waste.
Let me tell a fact.
Climate change is not due to us, its due to Sun getting hotter.
Its proved and the ultimate truth.
Happy now?
So what does it change?
Does it change that the earth is getting warmer? No
Does it change that sea levels will rise? No
Does it change that polar ice caps will melt disrupting global weather patterns? No
Does it change this can lead to drastic impact on world food production? No
Your attitude is like - Diseases are not man made, so don't take antibiotics.
If it was calculated that an asteroid will strike earth after 10 years and cause mass extinction, would you want everyone to sit on it because its not man made?
Grow up. The problem is the concern part. Who caused it will will decide later. So if there is something Humans can do to offset nature, its better to do it before its too late. Nature being the cause won't change the fact that the global climate change is not good for us.
My Aurora : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o91ZsGwJYyg
FB : https://www.facebook.com/TanveersPhotography
As a Republican, let me present a few points:
I have no idea what a Republican is. (From my perspective, both American political parties are so far out on the right wing that you need sophisticated instrumentation to tell them apart. *shrug*)
However:
1. Historically, the peers of scientists have presented political agenda's by cloaking them in jargon and supporting studies.
The people-have-been-wrong-before-so-let's-assume-they 're-wrong-now argument.
2. [...] Usually, it consists of a list of demands that (coincidentally?) line up with socialists and communists.
The using-emotionally-laden-words-to-discredit-the-arg ument argument.
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
The too-complicated-to-fix-so-let's-assume-it's-not-ha ppening argument.
You're really not doing yourself any favours here...
Representatives from The Union Of Concerned Scientists, a left wing organization, said they were told by some that they were "muzzled".
It was a left wing, Democrat wankfest to embarrass the administration led by that partisan ass, Henery Waxman.
Funny how these muzzled scientists keep turning up to be heard all the time. Guess they are not really muzzled.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Wow, what an amazing argument. It's just as if you've framed the entire thing as a contest between profit and life. Either you can live, or you can make money. You can't do both.
And you choose profit! Amazing. A false dichotomy, and the wrong choice.
Fascism trolls keeping me up every night. When I starts a preachin', he HITS ME WITH HIS REICH!
3.The alternatives are hardly tenable at this point:
a. Mass transport: Due to the size, shape, and demographic dispersion it is untenable for the majority of American metropolis'.
Never been to NYC, I guess. Millions of people every day use mass transit. A large percentage of city dwellers have no car. Every American metropolis has some mass trasport. As roads become too crowded they are forced to provide more mass transit for immediately practical purposes. Your argument is simply false.
b. Buy everyone new electric cars. For one, manufacturing all those new cars just uses more energy and produces more emissions. So people proposing that are asinine at best.
Electric cars have less parts and are less complex. On a large scale and as technology progresses we will use far less energy to produce them. Your argument ignores progress over time.
c. Everyone should bike or walk to work. Sorry, American not as small nor as densely populated as you may believe. See 3a
See China. Not everyone needs to bike or walk, but easily half of the population can as they live in dense areas. You assume this argument is black and white. But if just the SUV drivers in metropolitan areas switched to bikes we'd have less traffic and save a lot of energy.
d.Solar power: Great, spend a crapload of cash and maybe make your money back.
First, protecting the environment isn't about making your money back. It's about having a habitable planet for our kids. Second, you ignore technological progress over time. Every year solar is getting more efficient.
e. Windmill farms: Even the Greenies are confused on this one. Build'em but can't run them at full capacity because they chop up birds.
You're way behind on this one. The largest, slowest moving turbines do not kill any birds. Problem solved.
By your logic we shouldn't have telephones because it's a lot of work to put up the wires. And we shouldn't have electricity because the up-front cost to build the initial generators is so high. All of your points are narrow. They ignore the big picture, ignore some very important details, assume everything is all-or-nothing, and ignore technological progress.
You set a great example as a Republican.
Developers: We can use your help.
I'd like to see some valid counter-points of your own that disprove the grandparent post.
"Ask not what your country can do for you." --John F. Kennedy
Pssst!.... don't tell anyone but none of them ever had irrefutable proof.
I think Pasteur had pretty irrefutable proof. They had microscopes. They knew what caused the problem. All he had to do was convince religious freaks that bacteria didn't spontaneously appear out of nowhere by an act of God. But if you feel bacteria spontaneously generate themselves out of nothing but component pieces, feel free to drink unpasteurized milk and scoff at the rest of us for being just as susceptible to disease as yourself.
I don't think science is what you seem to think it is.
I guess that all depends on whether or not you classify global warming as science. GP is simply asking for a bit more than speculation before making trillion dollar policy decisions. I don't think that is too much to ask. Climate scientists claim CO2 is one of the primary drivers of "global warming." Yet, CO2 was an order of magnitude higher 450 million years ago and temperatures were roughly the same as they are today. CO2 concentrations are about 20% higher today than they have been any time in the last 400,000 years yet drastic temperature increases have not followed suit. In the mid 90's, Dr. Patrick Michaels called bullshit in front of Congress when predictions of higher temperatures made by computer models did not materialize. After wiping the egg from their faces, "climate scientists" once again were eating humble pie when computer models that generated gloom and doom "hockey stick" graphs were shown to spit out hockey sticks with random input by people who were not climate scientists.
Given that brief synopsis, I can see a person might be skeptical. Especially when the people predicting the end of the world are asking for taxpayer dollars to do it.
Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified.
Not global warming skeptics, meteorologists who were not educated in climate research, and who were presenting their uninformed opinions as the facts of a studied expert.
There's a significant difference. Someone who is skeptical of global warming, and has read the research and can make his case with facts and reason, is not a problem. Someone who is skeptical of global warming and has not read the research, they just feel that there is something wrong, that climatologists have "something to hide", and hey maybe it's the sun, has anyone thought about the sun? Those are problems, because uninformed unscientific opinions are not helpful in science. When that person is a meteorologist, whom people would assume has an informed scientific opinion and who presents their opinion as though it comes from their expertise, that is damaging.
What exactly do the ecofundamentalists have to hide? It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons" and the other side is threating trials and decertifications.
No, one side is saying "We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons."
And the other side is saying "Those reasons are bunk, the research has shown this, here's a cite, please read up on the current state of climatology before claiming you have a rational basis for your skepticism."
There's nothing to hide. The research is all there, in the open. The fact that there are few people who are both well-versed in this research and what you would call a "global warming skeptic" should tell you something. No, it's not a conspiracy.
The enemies of Democracy are
Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified.
Not global warming skeptics, meteorologists who were not educated in climate research, and who were presenting their uninformed opinions as the facts of a studied expert.
There's a significant difference. Someone who is skeptical of global warming, and has read the research and can make his case with facts and reason, is not a problem. Someone who is skeptical of global warming and has not read the research, they just feel that there is something wrong, that climatologists have "something to hide", and hey maybe it's the sun, has anyone thought about the sun? Those are problems, because uninformed unscientific opinions are not helpful in science. When that person is a meteorologist, whom people would assume has an informed scientific opinion and who presents their opinion as though it comes from their expertise, that is damaging.
What exactly do the ecofundamentalists have to hide? It seems to me that one side is saying 'We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons" and the other side is threating trials and decertifications.
No, one side is saying "We are skeptical of what you are saying for the following reasons."
And the other side is saying "Those reasons are bunk, the research has shown this, here's a cite, please read up on the current state of climatology before claiming you have a rational basis for your skepticism."
And then the first one goes "No, really, I don't believe you, and here's why."
And the other goes "Those are the same reasons as before, and I told you, that was covered here. Did you read it? Oh, I guess not. Well would you please shut up until you educate yourself on the topic so we can have a productive conversation?"
And the first responds "Ha! Ha! See that, he's censoring me! You don't dare face my truth! I knew global warming was bunk!"
But of course it's the climatologists who are being emotional and unscientific.
There's nothing to hide. The research is all there, in the open. The fact that there are few people who are both well-versed in this research and what you would call a "global warming skeptic" should tell you something. No, it's not a conspiracy. The conspiracy is what we are seeing in this Congressional hearing, with scientists pressured to change their statements to match an agenda of the administration. I find it really ridiculous that you would sit here and claim it's the ones who accept the conclusions of climate change research who are the ones trying to silence people, in an article presenting evidence of exactly the opposite.
There are scientists -- including those who find fault with existing research and actually try to enhance the state of knowledge -- and there are the "skeptics", who aren't actually skeptical so much as flat-out disbelieving and willing to grab at any evidence that serves their purpose without doing any further research to see if that evidence stands up to scientific inquiry. They are the ones with a pre-conceived conclusion and are "skeptical" of anything that shows otherwise while completely accepting of anything that does -- again, completely bereft of scientific merit. That's really the key here. Everyone's emotions aside, there are people doing real climatology science, and there are people who are not. The correlation between these two groups and the groups who you would call "believers" and "skeptics" tells you something.
The enemies of Democracy are
Oh, I see: So the 'Friends of Science' paid the audio-visual departement at the UofC to string together a series of clips into a pseudo-documentary, complete with a voiceover rehashing the various editorials released by the 'Friends of Science' over the years; Then they release it on youtube. Now is that to further the science or to spread yet more FUD in the public domain?
we'd still be debating whether or not to go into Afghanistan.
The problem with most of these scientists is they haven't figured out how to lie to the American public as effectively as the politicians. When politicians figure out a hundred different ways to take away our essential liberties with patriotic sounding names, emploring us to think about the children and defend our families from The Terrorists (TM), that's A-OK -- and please don't think I'm dividing this down party lines, there's politicians from all parties that are happy to cement their power base. When the scientific community suggests that we really ought to do something about the shit we're pumping into the atmosphere, suddenly everyone's flashing their Junior Climatologist merit badge and telling them why it ain't so.
News flash: real scientists don't deal in absolutes. They provide estimated probabilities and sensible suggestions. Becoming more eco-friendly is not going to turn us into a pinko communo-socialist hippy state any more than, say, allowing the president to expand the scope of government is going to turn us into a dictatorship. We're ostensibly on the same team here.
Your argument against bicycles is accurate but it also highlights an unfortunate secondary trend. Despite being spread far apart, why shouldn't it be feasible to bicycle to work? We are a fat nation and we're getting fatter. Furthermore, we are impatient and lazy. Encouraging people to bicycle to work would contribute to the solution to these problems. We would cut down on emissions of CO2 and other pollutants, we would get more exercise, and we may foster a less rushed, impatient attitude. I just started a new job in a new city and I think that my commute may actually be bicycle-friendly. I'm really looking forward to the weather warming up (currently, the daily highs are below freezing) so that I can try bicycling to work. (Even though it's ~10 miles and I have to be to work at 7:00 in the morning.)
Virtue finds and chooses the mean.
Aristotle, Ethica Nichomachea
3a. Look at the population densities you idiot. Your false dilemma was really nice, too.
3b. You've ignored the costs--financial and ecological--generated by moving 300M people to a brand-new mode of transportation. As Kunstler says, it's not the fuel, it's the lifestyle. We have a society predicated on easy-motoring. Electric cars displace the emissions, but don't eliminate them.
3c. Too stupid.
3d. More stupid.
If CO2 is the problem, how come we're not giving that guy who claims that a tanker full of iron in the Pacific would kick off a new ice age? Phytoplankton blooms would eat up all our CO2 emissions, and cost nothing. So why don't we look at that route?
Potato chips are a by-yourself food.
I know you are joking and all, but science is decidedly not a popularity contest, you are thinking of religion. Scientists that make vague assertions based on little or no data usually have no credibility in the scientific community. The facts are available to refute and are largely documented and published. The fact that the opposition doesn't receive much of a voice is due in great part to their theories not being founded upon solid science, but rather political motivation from oil companies. We surely need to absolve this notion that the scientific community is driven solely by popular opinion. If that were the case then we wouldn't have had many of the developments we have had today, such as evolution, which is still today a subject of debate. Scientists might back one theory over another, but it usually has very little to do with belief (although person investment might taint opinion). I'm sick of all this science is the new religion crap. Science is about meticulous pursuit of truth, pseudo-science and religion are popularity contests, Charles Darwin and Copernicus weren't popular with religion and overall opinion until the validity of their theories were seen to surpass the belief structures they supposedly poked holes in. Science isn't belief, it's process.
Judges and senates have been bought for gold; Esteem and love were never to be sold.
No one seems to want to take you up on this, so I'll give it a swing:
re: 1. Political Appointments. What he has done is in no way different than any other president preceeding him. Right or wrong, it is business as usual. I don't recall any president ever appointing a "common man", much less one of opposing views (Greenpeace as you mention, or PETA) to a position of influence.
re: 2. Personal Freedoms and Liberties. No arguments. With the possible exception of the Red Scare back in the 50s, he has done the most damage to our freedoms.
re: 3. Iraq War. I disagree. Recall that, just after 9/11, virtually *every* member of Congress, both Democrat AND republican (and the odd Independent or two) were screaming for blood and were looking at Iraq's leaders as the cause. I recall quite clearly the number of 'intel' reports, not just from the US, but the USSR, UK, GDR, MOSSAD, etc. stating more or less the same thing, Saddam was dangerous and needed taking out.
re: 4. Corporate Welfare. That 'idea' didn't start with ush, and plenty of other Presidents has abused it and at the same time had the opportunity to fix it, and they didn't. If you want to blame someone for CW, find the Congressional session that started it.
So rise up, all ye lost ones, as one, we'll claw the clouds.