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."
1) Environmental organizations are the 'new' home of the ex-Communists. Green on the outside, Red through and through. These are our enemies.
2) The 'cure' is having the Commies listed above dictate to us how we are going to live. ie. more nanny state bullshit. Nearly all on this side will fight tooth and nail against that crap. Including denying things.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
http://climate.weather.com/blog/9_11396.html?cm_ve n=one_deg_blog&cm_ite=one_deg_commentary&from=one_
Quote: If a meteorologist can't speak to the fundamental science of climate change, then maybe the AMS shouldn't give them a Seal of Approval.
Sounds like muzzling one point of view to me.
> Is there nothing the current administration won't do?
Raise the minimum wage? Admit Iraq was a fuck-up? Put the public interest ahead of its sponsors' interests? Recognize the reality of global warming?
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Why would China and India join if the US IS included?
The problem is that the US is NOT the biggest CO2 emissions maker in the world, that title belongs to China, and India is right behind it. Yet they were exempted from almost ALL the restrictions that would have been placed on us!
It's time you understood. Kyoto was NEVER about "saving the environment". It was about punishing the United States for it's economic success by strapping it with impossible to meet standards that would have absolutely crushed our economy. It would have been economic SUICIDE for us to sign on to it, and China KNEW this. That's why they wanted us to sign on so badly. They want to be the world's superpower, but they will never do it as long as the US has a healthy and robust economy. So they sought to stab us in the back by forcing exemptions for themselves into Kyoto, and the latent communists in the global environmental community were all too willing to be their accomplices.
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
It's simple - if we put all of our trust in scientist (aka atheists if you're republican), then we're basically defying G-d's will, screwing with his plans. GW was appointed by the Lord, and if we trust him that global warming is all part of a natural grand scheme, then what's to worry? Either G-d will be benevolent and cast aside any potential catastrophe, or he'll unleash the apocalypitc tides of armaggadeon - ushering in the return of Jesus. Either way it's a win/win!
I think people are afraid to admit that its that pesky Sun, on a warming cycle, and volcanic action, there's been a lot, and just plain cycles. People are afraid to admit it because then it is out of our control, and one thing people really like is to be in control.
Politics is the art of looking for trouble, finding it everywhere, diagnosing it incorrectly and applying the wrong fix.
Just looking at the moderation on this comment is a good way to figure out which side is constantly attempting to censor the other. The ecofundamentalists threaten Nuremberg style trials for global warming skeptics. Meanwhile weather channel climatologist Heidi Cullen wants global warming skeptics who are meteorologists decertified. Who is trying to silence whom here?
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.
Hey well some guy on slashdot named Ben Hocking who has a Computer Science degree says global warming is true, so it must be. Thanks for clearing that up Ben! I'm especially reassured that you have cleared up the fact that any warming trend which might exist isn't natural. Did you use your time machine to do that? You are so well rounded Ben, you are truly beneficial to the dwindling slashdot community! I'm sure you aren't playing this up for the hack professors you know to get more federally funded dollars to preserve their cushy university jobs either.
Your link comes from Senator Inhofe, who is well known for misleading rhetoric. You also seemed to have missed the fact that he's now in the minority. His ad hominem attach on Cullen is despicable. Please ask him when he is going to say anything related to reality when you see him on Friday.
--
Oh, what's the point?
Good. History is repeating itself. Every generation or so science "goes off the rails" and develops crazy "the sky if falling ideas." Eugenics and a "population explosion" with global famines were all trumpted by prominent scientists in prestigious journals just like global warming is today. It's about as credible.
Since the scientist who still have sense tend to hunker down and mutter cautious little statements about "not going to fast," there is a brief period in which politics has to get involved, telling the scientist to stop their silly chatter. Interestingly, for eugenics and the population explosion it was mostly religious people, particularly Catholics, who pressured the politicians to keep the scientific community from getting what it wanted--the ability to sterilize anyone from groups they didn't like. (There's no bigot like a scientific one.) I document all that in infinite detail in my The Pivot of Civlization in Historical Perspective. Read it if you want to discover just how racist the Ivy League colleges can be and why.
Sometimes, of course, the hysteria moves so fast, that efforts to block what scientists are doing comes too late. The furor over a population explosion was an obvious hoax. After the birth control pill hit the market in 1960s, US birthrates began to plumet AMONG WHITES. They did not drop nearly so fast among the black underclass, hence the real source of alarm for both population scientists (who're Darwinian to the core--many in the 1960s were rebranded eugenists) and liberals, who don't like blacks as much as they pretend. I once had a liberal English professor and supporter of Planned Parenthood point at a young black man nearby and whisper, "That's why we need legalized abortion." Exactly.
There are all sorts of similarly nasty agendas behind the global warming hysteria. Europe wants to stomp on a US economy that's far more robust than their own, hence their zeal for Kelo. And those who used to trumpet socialism now conceal it behind environmentalism. In Europe, they're called watermelons--green on the outside, red inside. It's the same old game of regiment the masses and keep them serfs.
And there are the pitiful folks in white coats who're part of all this. All their lives they've labored in obscurity, begging for tiny little federal grants. Hyping global warming gets them on CNN and gives them the keys to lots of grants. If you think scientists have too much integrity to do that sort of thing, you've not seen them chasing after research grants.
A lot of harm results if these people aren't blocked until the hysteria fades. Eugenics resulted in tens of thousands of poor people being sterilized, but it never achieved it's real goal, which Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger hinted in her Pivot of Civilization was forcibly sterilizing 10% of the US population (particularly recent immigrants). And the population explosion hysteria did get two of its goals, federally funded "family planning" (particularly for blacks and Hispanics) and legalized abortion (particularly for you know who). But it didn't get its ultimate goal, forcing religious, middle-class families to not have more than two kids, under penality of horrible taxation. That's why they are so paranoid about the "religious right."
Remember, many these scientists are way out on a limb. They're making predictions that'll be laughable in a couple of decades. Apparently, it's creating a split in the climatic sciences. Younger scientists know the data isn't there to back up the claims being made and are fearful they'll spend their lives in a discredited profession. (Who today claims to be in population studies? In 1970, it was the height of cool. Ditto eugenics, which in 1912 the NY Times called a "wonderful new science.") The older scientists, who'll soon retire with their pensions fattened by all those research grants, don't care. The younger ones do.
So keep in mind what this is. It's an attempt to keep this hysteria from becoming policy long enough for the facts to make it clea