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."

4 of 664 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Please explain Republican attitudes toward this by HBI · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.
  2. It goes both ways by cryptoguy · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.

  3. Re:Is this the U-turn? by d3ac0n · · Score: 1, Troll

    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
  4. Re:Climatologists? by JavaLord · · Score: 1, Troll

    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.