Wildlife Deputy Changed Science For Lobbyists

fistfullast33l writes "In another case of a government official creating a 'unique' interpretation of science, TPM Muckraker reports on Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior in Washington. The Department's Inspector General issued a report today documenting evidence that MacDonald not only overrode opinions of department scientists to benefit lobbyists, and political interests, but also that she shared internal documents with said lobbyists and a friend in an unnamed online roleplaying game. My favorite episode: 'At one point, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a nesting range of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a running battle with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.'"

Comments

humans are animals too

[Anonymous Coward]

so whatever we do to this planet is only natural.

She's hot

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't care what you say, she's hot and I want to eat her out.

Recommended Reading

[Raul654]

Suggested reading for everyone: The Republican War on Science by Chris Mooney. Chapter 11 (documenting the ID movement) is available online, but the site is not responding (quite possibly something to do with this story breaking).

Re:Recommended Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Department's Inspector General issued a report today ..."

Re:Recommended Reading

[HungSoLow]

As much as I appreciate the work Mr. Mooney does, what precisely makes him credible to speak about science related topics? He has a B.A. in English, and I doubt very much that he has a fundamental grasp of the concepts he speaks of... Anyone care to share their thoughts on the subject?

Perhaps I shouldn't snub those that are fighting the 'good fight'.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Brandybuck]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science! As long as some government official, bureaucrat or politician can gain a bit of power by manipulating science, they will. The separation of church and state has proven to be a great success. Let's take it one step further and have a separation of science and state.

Re:Recommended Reading

[illegalcortex]

I would think the best person to write such a report would be a journalist. They dig into stories like this, interviewing people and getting input from experts in various fields. They look into the background of the people involved and try to find inside information like leaked documents.

If a non-scientist can clearly present to other non-scientists a case of scientists being pressured by administrators with a politcal bent, then that is very compelling. It's much less compelling if it takes a scientist to understand the issues involved. Hopefully that makes sense.

I speak on a theoretical basis, never having read any of Mooney's writings. But theoretically, there's no surprise as to his background being in liberal arts.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rasputin465]

Perhaps I shouldn't snub those that are fighting the 'good fight'.

I agree we shouldn't snub the good guys, but at the same time, it wouldn't be the 'good fight' if we didn't subject everyone to criticism equally.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Evilest Doer]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science!

While that is true to an extent, Republicans have been taking their war with science to ridiculous lengths since W was selected. This is only one of many times in which the head of the department/ agency/ whatever turns out to be an English/ Journalism/ Underwater-Basketweaving major who goes on to censor and alter what PhD scientists write about what they have studied and researched.

But you are certainly right, though. Having a bunch of scientifically-uneducated lawyers (which most Congresscritters are) set science policy is, shall we say, not exactly the best of ideas. I think this whole attitude goes back to the ancient stupidity which basically said that the king knows all.

Re:Recommended Reading

[gujo-odori]

Think of what you're saying, though.

I mean, I agree that politicians generally suck and corruption is rampant, but you're suggesting that scientists not have oversight from anyone (except maybe other scientists?).

It's not like there isn't plenty of corruption in scientific circles as well (remember cold fusion, anyone?). Corruption in pursuit of research dollars (some govt, some VC), and just plain corruption as in "Anyone who doesn't agree with the accepted position must be a crackpot." Remember when the accepted position was that dinosaurs died out because of the rise of mammals and they just failed to compete and evolve? And anyone who didn't go along with that wasn't taken seriously? And later, when the impact/mass extinction theory began to emerge and people were considered crackpots for advancing it? Why was that? Because they threatened the status quo.

Now, that isn't an argument for oversight of science per se, but it does point out that science and scientists are far from the objective defenders of truth we'd like to believe.

In the case of global warming (which may or may not be going on, and may or may not be a long term trend and may or may not be caused mostly by humans or mostly by increased solar radiation and who cares if it is? It'll make my house near Disneyland into ocean-front property maybe ), a lot of scientists are pressured to go along with it. By peer pressure. By "step up to the research grant" pork barrel" pressure. Meanwhile, some pretty prominent scientists don't buy it.

Whatever the problems of government may be, at the end of the day, it is the people, through our elected officials, are in charge, and should be in charge. Scientists at the Dept. of the Interior or anywhere else are not elected and should not be in charge. They make recommendations, which may or may not be accepted.

As for the yellow-tailed-can't-adapt-to-a-changing-environmen t-whatever-bird, maybe the real question is whether or not it's worth protecting. Most species that ever existed are now extinct, as a result of being unable to adapt to changing conditions. That's called evolution.

Re:Recommended Reading

[maxume]

I think that control over handing out money is enough for the political side; they don't need a chance to directly edit scientist's words for acceptability or 'message'.

You speak of difficulty in overcoming established views as corruption, but I don't really see how it is. Being old and, so to speak, close minded(really some horrible morass of inertia, both institutional and personal, and arrogance) isn't corruption, it just happens to be how a lot of people end up. It's interesting to note that all of the things you talk about were eventually countered by scientists -- apparently even with their flaws, they were able to make progress.

It isn't clear what you think people should and should not be 'in charge' of. Lots of people, elected and appointed, are in charge of things. The President is responsible for carrying out the government, but he can't be 'in charge' of how much paper a certain office gets. That's nonsense, but it illustrates that in many situations, recommendations are effectively decisions, as it isn't practical to do things any other way.

As far as extinction and evolution, what's the harm in trying to minimize our species influence on the process for other species?

Re:Recommended Reading

[thrillseeker]

it wouldn't be the 'good fight' if we didn't subject everyone to criticism equally. On Slashdot? You haven't seen the continuous over-the-top in-your-face guess-what-makes-the-accepted-submissions agenda here on the "news for nerds" site?

Re:Recommended Reading

[nbauman]

As much as I appreciate the work Mr. Mooney does, what precisely makes him credible to speak about science related topics? He has a B.A. in English, and I doubt very much that he has a fundamental grasp of the concepts he speaks of... Anyone care to share their thoughts on the subject? That's a fair question that deserves a reasonable answer.

I read Mooney's book, and I read several of his articles. It was consistent with what I had been reading in Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, and Henry Waxman's documentation (which is where a lot of this comes from).

More convincing than their arguments is the Bush Administration's inability to give a convincing rebuttal. I also read the Wall Street Journal editorial page every day to get the other side, and I don't think they gave a coherent answer. Most significantly, when they got someone to rebut the scientists, they usually got an economist, not a scientist, and their economists seemed to make obvious logical and scientific fallicies. For that matter, the Wall Street Journal news stories pretty much took Mooney's perspective. (Science and New Scientist made a reasonable effort to give the opposing views too, and at least they got scientists.)

There was an editorial in Science signed by science advisors to presidents over 30 years denouncing the Bush Administration -- including many Republicans. Even Republican scientists said that they've never seen political pressure like this (and I saw political pressure on scientists under the Carter and Clinton Administration). The unanimity among scientists really is striking, bipartisan and unprecedented. It's always possible that they could all be wrong, but it's better than the evidence we usually have for other policy decisions (like Star Wars), and given the risks, you can't just say, "Let's put off action for 10 years while we get more evidence," like George W. Bush does.

So as a journalist, much of what Mooney does is merely summing up what highly-credentialed PhD-level scientists are saying, giving the arguments on both sides, coming to conclusions, and giving it a context. The scientists say that he's reporting their views accurately. Furthermore much of what he does is reporting on politics, and it's nice, but not necessary, to be a scientist to do that. (Gerard Piel, the publisher of Scientific American, was a history major.)

Lots of people do that, and still turn out to be wrong. But Mooney got generally good reviews in the scientific journals. He took a lot of stuff I read and made it easier for me to understand the context. In my reading, he does seem to have a good grasp of the subject. He wouldn't be qualified to do the hard science, like look at temperature data in ice cores and make a scientific judgment about it, but he doesn't make hard scientific decisions, he just talks to other people who do.

That's what qualifies him to write a book and report on this. He could be wrong, but he's at least as qualified as any journalist, columnist, or economist. Of course you have a perfect right to be skeptical, and you provide a useful service when you are skeptical. But I think there are good answers to your objections.

I don't suppose anyone would argue that the President of the United States has a fundamental grasp of these concepts.:)

Re:Recommended Reading

[nugneant]

Whatever the problems of government may be, at the end of the day, it is the people, through our elected officials, are in charge, and should be in charge.

Bravo to you for putting it so clearly. In a representative democracy, the senators, representatives, and various presidential subordinates, are not leaders. They are not even - in the ideal form of democracy - role models. Whenever I see them referred to as "leaders" (usually in glurge-for-kids, see: The Mini Page), I want to puke. The way I see it, politicians are actors - glorified lawyers, if you will. Their job is to say what you and I say, but say it in such a way that it's clean, precise, to the point, and doesn't contain so many bad Soviet Russia jokes. This is why I'll never vote Democratic or Republican - even if I knew it would come down to a single vote between the two, I would still vote for my ideals, not for "my favorite candidate on the island".

But enough off-topic ramblings. The trouble here is: What happens if 85% of the population believes that the Earth is flat? That the Sun revolves around us? What if 51% of the population decides it would be a lot nicer if the George Dubya forces demolished the World Trade Center with dynamite or miniature truckbombs or nanotermites or whatever?

We don't want politicians in "charge" of science, definitely - but it's even more dangerous to place "the People" in charge of science. We, as nerds, all get irritated when TIME or the New York Times completely botches the simple facts of a computing principle - and most of us harbor a distaste for "sensationalistic science" - such as that case a few months back about the "mysterious black bugs that lived under your skin and sucked your neurons". Can you imagine what would happen if science was put to a vote of the People? We'd have Intelligently Designed second gunmen on the Grassy Knoll, pi would be 3.14, and bodies in motion would remain in motion until they stopped, because Grandma Nitwit refuses to have it any other way, and the majority of people feel very sorry for Grandma Nitwit because she is such a nice person.

Scientists should be in control of science. Science should be placed in a category all its own - the "real world" - the world that determines whether Jimmy Twoshoes is going to live or die after ramming into an 18-wheeler on his bicycle. The world of Christ and myth and what's "nice" and "convenient" and "easy to have faith on" can either be separate, or non-existant - but to place it as an equal is moral relativism at its absolute worst. And to look at science - or the voice of science - as just another checkbox alongside "Christian", "Jew", "Islam", "other" (or "the Christian view", the "Jew view", etc) is to take a dangerously literal view towards "science as a belief system", or whatever the current head-up-the-ass in-vogue philosophical outlook is.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

That's not really true. Republicans are no more "anti-science" than Democrats, they just tend to suppress and pursue different sciences. Republicans pursue applied, practical research, especially when it involves things like weapons, vehicles, power generation and industry. They suppress stem cell research, biological studies in general, and are generally quite opposed to evolutionary theory. Democrats on the other hand tend to be much less supportive of applied sciences, especially nuclear research and new industrial technologies. Meanwhile they have no problem supporting research into all the things that Republicans oppose.

It's just a matter of differing priorities. The typical left-wing opposition to nuclear power and incineration technology is no less "anti-science" than the right-wing opposition to evolutionary theory and stem cell research. Each side of the political spectrum has it's Sacred Cows, and they can both be equally ignorant when it comes to science. The GPP had it absolutely right - the solution isn't just excluding republicans from making scientific decisions, but rather keeping politics and science entirely separate.

Re:Recommended Reading

[amRadioHed]

Whoa there, there is a huge difference between having different priorities and wholesale distortion of scientific evidence which is what the Republican's are continuously being caught doing.

Can you think of any situations where a Democrat blatantly misrepresented scientific evidence in order to advance a partisan agenda? I've never heard of any. I'm sure it's happened at some point, but certainly not to the extend that this Administration is guilty of such things.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst.

You're right in that the scale is different. The biggest worry for me personally is the republicans push for "abstinence only" sex education, and the constant attempts to bring "intelligent design" into schools. Those two alone pretty much dwarf anything the dems have done. But it's silly to pretend that the dems are much better - they just tend to be less visible because they attack "acceptable targets". When a republican claims that evolution doesn't exist, people get real upset, but when a democrat claims that nuclear power is bad, people pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker. There's a lot of bad science out there being pushed by the dems too, but people aren't aware of it because most of us have already bought into it.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Beryllium Sphere(tm)]

The problem is people who don't believe in objective reality.

Such people are dangerous everywhere but are outright toxic when allowed to tamper with the results of fieldwork.

People who substitute goodfact for realfact and own propaganda machines are inimical to democracy.

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter]

"Well, Al Gore is a good example of "wholesale distortion of scientific evidence". While I don't disagree with all of his conclusions, the majority of his "research" and "evidence" is questionable at best, and outright lies at worst."

That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?

BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).

Re:Recommended Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, ....

Bull. What did you expect when Al Gore came up with numbers about what the tax reductions meant for real people and the current dickwad-in-chief had no better response than to keep repeating, "Fuzzy math. Fuzzy math.", like the insane fool he is. Then he found enough other anti-scientific dickwads to vote him into office.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Mr. Slippery]

when a democrat claims that nuclear power is bad, people pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker.

Certainly saying "nukes are bad, umkay?" is anti-science.

Taking a long good look at the safety (no, pebble-bed reactors are not all that safe), security (Iran's in the news again), waste disposal (still don't have a place to put it), and limited fuel availablity issues involved with fission and concluding that it is a poor choice for our long-term energy needs, is not. (Note that there are other nuclear power technologies, like thorium spallation "energy amplifiers", and of course fusion, that hold more promise, and we ought to be directing resources toward researching and developing these rather than on fission.)

Indeed, much of the support for fission seems to be based more on techno-fetishism, on a desire to relize a myth of Man as Master, holding the Power of the Mighty Atom, than on sound scientific analysis.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

I read Mooney's book, and I read several of his articles. It was consistent with what I had been reading in Science, New Scientist, Scientific American, and Henry Waxman's documentation (which is where a lot of this comes from).

Not to mention that Henry Waxman is one of the finest investigators I have ever followed. And he likely has more integrity than the rest of Congress combined.

Re:Recommended Reading

[plasmacutter]

no place to put it?

go out at night and look at the sky. everything that is not pitch black is a place to put nuclear waste.

We have containment methods which are capable of withstanding the force of an accidental rocket detonation and impact.

it is not a question of having a place to put it, but a question of people not stepping up to pay the disposal fees (which WILL go down as space becomes more accessible).

in short: we could fire it into the sun or the core of a gas giant, where it will never be seen again.

Re:Recommended Reading

[jstomel]

The difference is that when democrats are opposed to research, they just don't fund it. They don't say to scientists "we don't like nuclear weapons, so change epsilon in the equations so that they won't work any more". Whereas republicans seem to tell scientists to change their data to fit the facts that they want to be true, like telling scientists to change the nesting range so that california isn't included in the range of this bird. The former is a funding issue. That's political, it's ledgit. The later is data manipulation. In the world of science, that's sacriledge.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, but that is stupid, for the simple reason that everyone is not deserving of equal criticism.

Re:Recommended Reading

[khallow]

The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science!

It appears to me that the only practical solution then is to eliminate public funding of science, education, etc. That is the only way to do what you say. Even if you appoint a scientist (or committee of scientists) to supervise the distribution of these funds, that scientist becomes a politician as a result because they are in a strictly political position and getting paid to make political decisions.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be new here... Oh, wait, 7 digit UID. You are.

-- Anonymous Coward, UID 0

Re:Recommended Reading

[1u3hr]

The problem isn't that Republicans are at war with science, or the Democrats. The problem is that we have put politicians in charge of science!

Who should be "in charge of science" then? The church? I guess you mean scientists should be in charge of science. But when it comes to spending money, as when someone actually wants to do science, the government has to pony up. And thus ultimately, politicians have a say; unless you're going to give scientists a blank cheque.

But I don't accept your claim that the Republicans are no worse than Democrats in this respect. Just how they deal with evolution and global warming, at least in Bush's reign, is much worse than anything I can recall a Democratic leadership doing. Perhaps you'd like to give some counter examples?

Re:Recommended Reading

[1u3hr]

Democrats on the other hand tend to be much less supportive of applied sciences, especially nuclear research and new industrial technologies.

Engineering isn't basic science. Deciding they'd rather not support a technology is not much to do with supporting science. In fact, if these were economically viable, they wouldn't need government subsidy anyway.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rasputin465]

I'm sorry, but that is stupid, for the simple reason that everyone is not deserving of equal criticism.

My statement was stupid, but your blatant circular reasoning isn't? OF COURSE everyone is deserving of equal criticism. The whole point is that it shows who can actually survive the criticism, and in fact it's at the very core of the scientific method. But ok, if you say that's stupid "for the simple reason that it's stupid" I guess I can't argue with that.

Re:Recommended Reading

[1u3hr]

in short: we could fire it into the sun or the core of a gas giant, where it will never be seen again.

That's fucking insane. A percentage of rockets do blow up on ascent, and making a container that could survive that and not release highly poisonous waste into the air would weigh much more than the waste itself. It would cost billions to dispose of a few tons.

There are plenty of safer and much, much, cheaper ways to dispose of nuclear waste. Yucca Mountain is pretty ideal, except for those who live nearby.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Captain Splendid]

Having a bunch of scientifically-uneducated lawyers

Mod parent up. If there's ever a profession that gets technology wrong like nobody else, it's the lawyers. Mind you, there is a solution. Just mandate that all lawyers must marry a geek to basically bring balance to the universe. Worked for me and my wife.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Brandybuck]

But I don't accept your claim that the Republicans are no worse than Democrats in this respect. Just how they deal with evolution and global warming, at least in Bush's reign, is much worse than anything I can recall a Democratic leadership doing. Perhaps you'd like to give some counter examples?

You're right. Democrat shit don't stink! What's their 2008 campaing slogan going to be? "7.3% less corrupt than the other guys"?

Re:Recommended Reading

[1u3hr]

You're right. Democrat shit don't stink!

So you don't have any actual examples then.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Empiric]

That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?

His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming. While cigarettes are a perennially tempting punching-bag/revenue-source for the government, I think it worth noting that cigarettes are, at base, very small quantities of leaves. If cigarettes are a significant contributor, home fireplaces must be an ecological disaster.

This assertion markedly decreased the credibility of his Inconvenient Truth presentation, for me personally.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

There's many aspects of his presentation that are absolutely ridiculous, such as suggesting that oceans would rise high enough to cover entire apartment buildings. I'm paraphrasing there, but I know he made a claim along those lines. Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late. Or his talk about mosquitoes and malaria being caused by global warming. Or any number of claims that he makes in his little power point presentation.

I'm not disputing the idea that humans have made some contribution to an increase in global temperatures, I just think Al Gore is an idiot. He did to Global Warming what Michael Moore did to 9/11 and the Afghan war. And a LOT of very liberal, very left-leaning individuals, are making their fortunes by spreading this type of nonsense, while others use it in order to pursue political goals.

It's not just a problem in the US either. Here in Canada, the right-wingers have thankfully lost pretty much all influence over science, so when it comes to making unscientific decisions, our left-wingers are the biggest culprits. In Toronto we've been trying to solve our garbage disposal problem for years, but people have been so conditioned to think of incineration technology as "evil" that no amount of scientific data will get the local politicians to consider it as a solution. That's not the same thing as denying evolution, no, but it IS unscientific, and it is a problem.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

Nonsense, democrats do similar things all the time. Like claiming that 50,000 species go extinct every year. Or that 600,000 civilians have been killed in Iraq due to the war. Or, hell, take a look at how the Global Warming theory got it's start - it was based on a study of tree rings that suggested an increase in local temperatures, in an area where temperature recordings actually showed a decrease in temperatures. Democrats are just as guilty of fudging their numbers as the Republicans are. If anything, they do it MORE often, because republicans are more likely to base unscientific arguments on morality or religion, while dems try to back all of THEIR bad science with actual figures and data.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rewinn]

>His assertion that second-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming

Where has Al Gore, or anyone, asserted that 2nd-hand cigarette smoke is a large contributor to global warming ... outside of The Onion?

One suspects you are the victim of a joke. Link please?

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter]

"Or his ludicrous suggestion that we only have 10 years to turn things around, or it will be too late"

This "ludicrous suggestion" can also be attributed to James Hansen, Hansen is a world renown scientist who is the head of a government department you may have come across while checking Gore's facts. Naturally this kind of "minor" political interference has nothing to do with the funding for monitoring the biosphere being redirected to putting a couple of daiper wearing adults onto the surface of Mars.

The senario you "paraphrased" for sea level rise - It was made clear by Gore he was refering to the "worst case" senario, I suggest you have not watched the presentation or maybe the cavetes somehow eluded you.

Al Gore has science firmly on his side even if some of his speculation proves incorrect.

Re:Recommended Reading

[cbacba]

"I think this whole attitude goes back to the ancient stupidity which basically said that the king knows all."

'Goes Back' ???? It never left, with the exception of the founding concepts of the US and the erosion of those concepts started within a few years.

Big bro. knows what's good for you. It's the same thing, same size, same color as what's good for everyone else.

It appears that science, or some areas of science, were co-opted over the last few years into the political struggle. Just listen to Reverend algore as he preaches on global warming. That woman, who may be a bush appointee, a clinton appointee or even a civil servant non political appointee, evidently is trying to protect her family's property from what might be draconian tyranny and violation of property rights - just because some twitty bird might possibly fly through there sometime - perhaps just before it becomes lunch for a hawk.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rtb61]

Grow up, one side is arguing on the side of safety and taking cautious ie. erring on the side of least harm and the other blatantly doesn't care about the consequences and ignoring known science and distorting and misrepresenting facts.

The current administration has been corrupting the work of one agency after another, from military hospitals to the FDA, the EPA is becoming a joke as it now looks for ways for polluters to be able to pollute more. What is really sick is they are destroying the future of their own children in the insane pursuit of maximum profit for themselves now.

Remember this, fudging the Democrat way, a few greedy arse holes make a little bit less money, fudging the republican way millions of people die, you make your choice about which is the safer and better way to go for tomorrows grand children.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

Remember this, fudging the Democrat way, a few greedy arse holes make a little bit less money

I don't know, Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky seem to be doing just fine....

Re:Recommended Reading

[Empiric]

He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film. He goes on to discuss a sense of being dismayed that his father was originally a tobacco farmer, and pleased that he switched to another crop. My link would be a link to the film itself, if I could find it on the 'net, though it's running on a cable movie channel in the U.S., I believe Showtime, right now.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rewinn]

>He says it, almost verbatim, in the Inconvenient Truth documentary/film.

I regret to say that you have almost certainly been mislead on this. If Al Gore had actually said that 2ndhand cigarette smoke is a large component of global warming, there would be some evidence of this quote from a reputable source, such as the NYT or a peer-reviewed scientific journal ( FYI NewsMax and Drudge are not reputable sources). And if it were a claim in the movie, it would be repeated on the website.

AFAIK there is no scientific evidence that tobacco smoke contributes significantly to global warming; for all its many other health faults, burning tobacco merely releases carbon previously extracted from the atmostphere by the tobacco plant. Thus (discounting the carbon impact of farming) tobacco burning is roughly carbon-neutral.

And Al's presentations are scrupulously based on mainstream science; for him to have deviated from this pattern would be so newsworthy that it cannot be believed without an unsourced assertion to one of the most widely viewed documentaries of all timed.

Gore may be dismayed at tobacco farming because of the health impact of its product (a predictable 30+% of its users die prematurely from normal use, making it one of the most dangerous products in common use), see http://www.tobacco-facts.info/ warning: unpleasant photos. There may also be a carbon impact from tobacco farming different from that of other crops; but neither items have much to do with 2ndhand smoke. If you cannot quote the exact words and the point in the DVD when Gore says them, it must be concluded that the source of this data has misinformed you.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Empiric]

Hmm...

I just went over a transcript of the presentation:

My father, he had grown tobacco all his life. He stopped it. Whatever explanation that seemed to make sense in the past, just didn't cut it anymore. He stopped it. It's just human nature to take time to connect the dots. I know that. But I also know that there can be a day of reckoning when you wished you had connected the dots more quickly.

(Here)

Perhaps I misunderstood an off-topic analogy between the tobacco industry and his global warming opposition as indicating a direct link of tobacco with his presentation's topic--though, I'm not entirely certain this ambiguity wasn't intentional.

In any case, though I thought I recalled a more direct statement, I can't find it--and your comment stands.

Re:Recommended Reading

[den479]

There is a big difference between Al Gore saying that "this is what some scientists are reporting" and G. W. saying to scientist "Your facts don't agree with our policies so change your facts"

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter]

**Me: Adjusts tin foil hat***

I think the point Gore was trying to make is that the tobbaco companies spent decades obfuscating and falsifying the science that "connected the dots" between tabacco and cancer, but there came a point for his farther when he could no longer (in good conscience) accept the innane arguments of the tabacco lobbyists.

Now in the above sentence substitute "fossil fuel" for "tabacco" and "climate change" for "cancer", it still makes sense.

The second hand smoke "connection" (I don't know of a quote) could be a somewhat obscure reference to a prominent tabacco lobbyists. A certain Fred Singer, who after loosing the good fight to preserve our freedom to blow smoke in someone else's face, went on to perform similar "scientific" duties for the fossil fuel industry in thier global war on common sense. It's also worth noting that in the 90's Gore fought hard for envronmental laws regulating second hand smoke, laws that have now become a part of common courtesy in western culture.

From my vanatge point on the other side of the Pacific, Gore strikes me as a nerd in a suit trying to educate a bunch of rednecks who are busy flinging turds at him and his slide show.

**Me: Removes tin foil hat***

OTOH: As you pointed out, there is also a fitting analogy where climate science is viewed as a medical diagnosis/prognosis.

Re:Recommended Reading

[TapeCutter]

Remember this, fudging the Democrat way, a few greedy arse holes make a little bit less money

I don't know, Al Gore, Michael Moore, and Noam Chomsky seem to be doing just fine....

Stop it, you almost made Mr Murdoch laugh.

Re:Recommended Reading

[RespekMyAthorati]

republicans are more likely to base unscientific arguments on morality or religion, while dems try to back all of THEIR bad science with actual figures and data.

What a nut.
If actual figures and data are used, then there is no abuse of science. You may not like the conclusions, but that's just tough for you.

Re:Recommended Reading

[rewinn]

The denials are certainly remarkable similar: the same denial of the science establishing the hazards of tobacco are structurally very like to the denail of the science establishing catastrophic anthropogenic global warming. I believe that the emotional basis for non-scientists to be deniers is, essentially,the same.

Re:Recommended Reading

[Stanistani]

I applaud you for having the moral courage to say you were mistaken, even on a relatively small point, rather than just walking away from the conversation or stubbornly denying a fact as so many others do.

That's rare, in life as on this site.

Bravo, and here's to civil discourse.

Re:Recommended Reading

[c6gunner]

Fine, scratch the word "actual". What I meant to say is that they're more likely to try and back their conclusions with numbers and science. They may fail miserably in the process, but they try.

Re:Recommended Reading

[RespekMyAthorati]

If by "fail miserably" you mean "can provide evidence of correctness, but upset my Sunday-School dogma" I would have to agree with you.

MMOG?

[Anonymous Coward]

After reading and re-reading all 3 linked articles, I see no specific or generic reference to an MMOG. Am I blind (if so, I blame it on MMOG-induced sleep deprivation)? Is the article summary just making that part up? Or is there another article that wasn't linked? Inquiring minds want to know.

Re:MMOG?

[sunwukong]

There's mention of it here.

Obviously crafting related

[Headw1nd]

"Ms. MacDonald, if you read the report you will see that the white-tailed prairie dog is clearly in need of protec-"

"NO!! I NEED TEN MORE HIDES TO COMPLETE MY CLOAK!!"

What a

[Anonymous Coward]

dumb bitch. This is why lobbyists need to take a long walk off the short pier.

All too common

[coldmist]

A few years ago, there was a story posted about how a biologist had used some big cat hairs to base his research on. Turned out, that the hairs had come from a cat in a zoo.

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road, and the environmentalists would cry foul. After they did an autopsy on one, they found frozen lettuce in its stomach. The environmentalists had caught them live, fed them for a while, then froze them until "needed".

Ya, really good stuff there.

Re:All too common

[sunwukong]

References?

Or are you arguing that Ms MacDonald is performing an essential public service by correcting the exaggerations of her scientific staff and is just coincidentally benefitting herself and her allies?

If you're going to troll, you should probably stick to AC.

Re:All too common

[dbIII]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road

Come on now. Utah isn't real, it's just somewhere you set your tall stories to fool credulous foreigners.

Re:All too common

[maxume]

Thar be snow there. Really, really good snow. And apparently a tabernacle. Anyway, lay off the place with the snow.

Re:All too common

[gweihir]

Your are correct in that environmentsalists also fake things. People that do not understand how science works are everywhere. Science does not start out with a result. Science produces results and it is completely mercyless when done right, insofar as the results will be nothing that can be changed and still be science.

As a side-note: Global warming is not something environmentalists discoverd. It was discoverd by mererologists that are scientists, meaning they did their best to get accurate results, no matter what these results are! They do not have an agenda to find something specific and that, and only that, makes them scientists.

People that try to demontrate their prconceptions in a scientific fashion are incompetents and should not be believed under any circumstances. Many of them seem to believe that changing scientific reports changes reality. It does not. Reality is mercyless. Those that ignore it, will be killed by it eventually.

Re:All too common

[NeutronCowboy]

Ok, I know that environmentalists are nutty as well, but how the hell does a completely unsupported accusation like the first and second story get modded informative? It's like saying the jews are behind 9/11 is an informative statement. The only people it informs is those who want to believe it.

Re:All too common

[ScottForbes]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road, and the environmentalists would cry foul. After they did an autopsy on one, they found frozen lettuce in its stomach. The environmentalists had caught them live, fed them for a while, then froze them until "needed".

...and even worse, Al Gore is using his internet to keep this story from being reported!

Re:All too common

[frank_adrian314159]

Your[sic] are correct in that environmentsalists [sic] also fake things.

Uh, no. Only female environmentalists fake things*. Glad to clear that up for you.

*Although, being on Slashdot, I can only take others' word for this.

Re:All too common

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah yes, the infamous "If It's Not in Google, It Didn't Really Happen" syndrome...

I see it has spread from Wikipedia to Slashdot. Who knows where it may spread next?

Re:All too common

[1u3hr]

In South-West Utah, whenever some road work was going to be done, they would find a dead tortoise on the road, and the environmentalists would cry foul. After they did an autopsy on one, they found frozen lettuce in its stomach. The environmentalists had caught them live, fed them for a while, then froze them until "needed".

And you have a report on this you can direct us to?

sigh ...

[Anonymous Coward]

So I haven't posted in the past couple weeks, because the time I used to waste updating this waste of time has been spent dealing with spammers and scripters who are either convinced I'm a flaming homosexual or that gay niggers should bind together in some sort of organization. At any rate, I just don't care, and I don't want to spend my time on it, so from now on, there's no comments. If you got something to say, email me, unless it relates to the groups I mentioned above, then don't bother me. Instead try talking to real people, like girls. They smell nice and are nice to be around, almost like evolution made it that way.

I'm not sure what I'm gonna do with my old entries, since movabletype doesn't seem to allow me to turn comments off on them, so they might be all deleted in the not-too-distant future. Sucks, doesn't it? That's why one shouldn't go pissing in the pool!

Anyway, enough wasting time on this place. It is the middle of the day and I have a real job that pays money to worry about. Thanks for wasting my break from work, fuckers, and you know who you are.

Shows the /. editors disconnect from the Real

[Freedom451]

World(TM).

They think chevrontexaco is an MMORPG rather than a MMOOPC (massive mult-national offline oil producting company).

It is true that the upper levels of Chevron Texaco seem to regard US Dollars as about as real and Linden dollars & a world where you can buy scientific findings is something of a virtual world--obviously MacDonald feels that she can change a bird's nesting range by fiat, certainly seems she sees her role as more of a dungeon master than a steward.

What? Enviornmentalists go overboard?

[Anonymous Coward]

Say it ain't so! Please tell me environmental extremists aren't exaggerating their claims in order to push their agenda!

Next thing you know, I'll find out global warming is being overblown by a bunch of humanity-is-horrible loons...

Save the dinosaur

[Coolhand2120]

Like all endangered species, their [the yellow whatever] extension can be directly attributed to the rise of mankind. Even the brontosaurus was driven away because of small ground dwelling mammals. Let's just say from this point forward it's our fault. Darwin would never say "Survival of the fittest"

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's just say from this point forward it's our fault. Darwin would never say "Survival of the fittest"

Except that Darwin would probably recognize that if we want to continue to be the fittest, we're going to have to do something to tame the planet. We're not going to get very far once corn crops start withering. If our meat stock dies off, we're getting into even deeper shit. But that's ok, it'll be a problem for our grandkids to solve, and we all know kids suck and are therefore unfit to live.

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Coolhand2120]

I see no reason to think our cattle and corn are going to die off. Do you? If anything, technological advances, and the way they happen exponentially will more than offset the worry about the stewardship of the planet and our continued sustenance. Unless there is a nuclear war, then we're all screwed, even the yellow tailed fench or whatever it was.

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Dunbal]

We're not going to get very far once corn crops start withering. If our meat stock dies off, we're getting into even deeper shit.

      Nahh, once you've tasted human you never go back, they say. The only ones in deep shit are the ones not prepared to take that little step, close their eyes, and add lots of onions.

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Pandare]

Like all endangered species, their [the yellow whatever] extension can be directly attributed to the rise of mankind. So is that: *.bird? or *.aves?

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Creepy Crawler]

Do you realize that humans taste like pigs? Well, it is rather close.

Why do you think some American native tribes said that humans were "long pigs"?

Food for thought.

Re:Save the dinosaur

[Anonymous Coward]

Nahh, once you've tasted human you never go back, they say.

Have we learned nothing from Futurama?

Fry: My God! What if the secret ingredientis people!?
Leela: No, there's already a soda like that. Soylent Cola.
Fry: Oh. How is it?
Leela: It varies from person to person.

Also note what our cannibal friends found out:

Two cannibals are eating a clown. Says one: "Tastes funny"

Re:What? Enviornmentalists go overboard?

[Anonymous Coward]

A few scientists who do something unscientific means that all of research you don't like is automatically refuted?

Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

Better hurry up and buy your carbon indulgences, sinner.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer]

Global Warming is the Left's ID

Global warming is based on measured results and well understood scientific principles. The study of global warming has been a careful, ongoing scientific concern for over forty years. ID is just repackaged Young Earth Creationism from people who are stupid enough to believe that the world is only 6000 years old. Even St. Augustine (circa 5th century) advised people not to take the Genesis account as literal history since it was never meant to be that way.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

The study of global warming has been a careful, ongoing scientific concern for over forty years.

I want some kool-aid.

In the late 70s they were yelling about global cooling. Sorry, that's LESS THAN forty years ago.

Or did you go to a public school?

I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I also don't believe we're significant enough to have that much impact on the planet. Especially not when it seems more aimed just at America and American businesses, and countries like China are exempted from the big environmentalist wet dream of Kyoto.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[ResidntGeek]

Nobody cares what you believe. We're trying to keep coastal areas habitable. You need to shut the fuck up; you don't know what you're talking about, and you're fueling men who will cause major problems in the future. I'm aware that the evidence for global warming isn't as conclusive as some rabid environmentalists would have you believe, but to assume that means everything is peachy and you should keep as many lights as you can on at night is flat-out retarded. Also, the predictions of global cooling was based on a flawed model, one whose errors have been found, explained, and fixed. If you can find the same sort of errors in the current models, great, otherwise learn to judge the maturity of a science before commenting on it.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[swingbyte]

I always misread creationism as cretenism - insult to cretins

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Copid]

In the late 70s they were yelling about global cooling. Sorry, that's LESS THAN forty years ago.

Challenge! References, please. Three papers (other than some overblown sensationalist popular media misinterpretation of actual scientific results) would be a good start, although evidence of anything like a broad consensus would be better.

I don't believe the Earth is only 6000 years old, but I also don't believe we're significant enough to have that much impact on the planet.

And you're basing this on...?

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[c6gunner]

I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age". Scared the crap out of me. This was in early/mid-90's. Then a few years later, we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?".

When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Kenyon]

That's great dude. Good thing some people understand the real science behind whatever the latest thing is that you're scared about.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

Here you go Coped, Try Google, this is only one reference there are plenty more including papers in "peer reviewed journals" of the time for whatever that is worth.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15391426/site/newsweek /

Just because you were a kid and not paying attention at the time doesn't mean it didn't happen and by the way, MULTIPLE times....

However, this IS the first time (to my knowledge) that we have had the hubris to decide it's entirely our work.

Try looking up the little Ice age in Europe then take a look at the history of the Sahara.
The planetary climate is more than just a little bit variable.

Mind you, I STILL think that reducing energy use, pollution & yadda is a good idea.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Copid]

Here you go Coped, Try Google, this is only one reference there are plenty more including papers in "peer reviewed journals" of the time for whatever that is worth.

That's not what I was asking for. I know that you claim that there was some sort major "global cooling" movement in the 70's. I was asking you to cite actual evidence that there was. If you had read the article that you linked to, you might have come across the line, "The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today" for example.

My point is that the various claims of decades past don't come near the broad consensus and quantities of data we have today. The fact that some scientists have been wrong in the past doesn't mean that most scientists are wrong now.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Ptraci]

From the second page of that article:

The point to remember, says Connolley, is that predictions of global cooling never approached the kind of widespread scientific consensus that supports the greenhouse effect today. And for good reason: the tools scientists have at their disposal now--vastly more data, incomparably faster computers and infinitely more sophisticated mathematical models--render any forecasts from 1975 as inoperative as the predictions being made around the same time about the inevitable triumph of communism.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[VON-MAN]

'I remember being taught in highschool that "we are overdue for another ice age'
Yes, since then the scientific ideas on these topics have changed (why do people think that's strange?). However, there is still a LOT of uncertainty on how ice ages happen.

"we started learning about holes in the ozone layer, and my first thought was "wait, if this stops the next ice age, isn't it a good thing?"
The holes in the ozone layer have nothing to do with the climate, and everything with CFK's and harmful ultraviolet light. Ask Australians, they'll know.

"When a single volcanic eruption has the potential to put out more CO2 than all human production over the last decade, I think it's fair to say that we're a pretty insignificant factor."

Let's turn this argument around (for fun and education). Did you know that big volcanos (as in, happens every couple of years) can produce the same amount for carbondioxide as all human production over the last decade? You don't have to strain to realize this doesn't help the global warming problem at all!

Keep in mind that these volcano's have been partaking in the earth CO2 cycle for as long as humans remember, and really are an integral part of it. CO2 is absorbed by the ocean (at a certain rate), volcanos and animals contribute to it (at certain rates), and now also humans contribute heavily to it. Of course, this isn't to say that one really big volcano cannot ruin the earth climate for a couple of years to come.
But, think of this: if one reasonably big volcano can dominate earth climate for years (as we have seen a couple of times now), why then is it so strange that humans contribute to the effects of the CO2 when the human production is slowly getting comparable with what volcanos can do. And we do it every day, every year, and it is increasing fast.


As a side note, of course we humans have hardly seen what volcanos can REALLY DO. And volcanos don't just produce CO2 but also a lot of ashes (blocks sun) and SO2 (ozone dissolving(?) and other problems), so don't just pull volcanos out of your hat when talking about global warming, unless you know a bit more.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[HappyUserPerson]

I'm aware that the evidence for global warming isn't as conclusive as some rabid environmentalists would have you believe

Okay, good, showing some reasoned caution.

Also, the predictions of global cooling was based on a flawed model, one whose errors have been found, explained, and fixed.

BAM! Everything is known, explained, and right as rain!\ The idea of global cooling happened during a time of slight general cooling (from 1940 - 1970). It's no accident that the models of the time just so happened to fit expectations (the weather outside). Just like today, we're going though a period of slight warming, and the complex, arbitrary models fit perfectly and spell DOOM and DISASTER, just like the old global cooling models.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[DDLKermit007]

Yes, because starting a response with "nobody cares what you believe" really means that (otherwise you'd never said a damn thing). Not to mention some of us are looking for ya know, intelligent debate. The Earth goes through warming & cooling cycles we really have no control over. Just as how global cooling was debunked years ago, so will global warming once we enter another cooling cycle, and we'll be back at the same place where we are now with crazed environmentalists who are really concerned with taking "the man" down a notch more than the environment, and indigent people, just, like, you. Yes we are fucking our environment up, but saying global warming is the result is just as bad of science as the TFA's science. For example: places like Iraq used to be beautiful, and very green areas in previous history. However the people of the area treated it like shit, and well, they have a sprawling desert now. If we treat the world bad enough it'll shake us off like a bad cold, and get back to business as usual.

We all know leaving all the lights on, running the AC while with 120 out with the doors open, massive fat assed American sized SUVs, and dumping toxins into our environment is bad. But please, rally behind the real truth that it's just bad common sense to do such things, and not some buzzword of the day. You can always tell when your being fed a load of tripe, because someone always spouts off a buzzword or 50.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[keraneuology]

ID is just repackaged Young Earth Creationism from people who are stupid enough to believe that the world is only 6000 years old.

Most people who believe in intelligent design do NOT believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. ID is *NOT* the same thing as creationism.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[aussie_a]

You either had shit teachers or you're trolling. Because I remember in 1992 being taught about global warming.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer]

The idea of global cooling happened during a time of slight general cooling (from 1940 - 1970). It's no accident that the models of the time just so happened to fit expectations (the weather outside).

Actually, the question at the time was one of will the increase in carbon dioxide and other emissions create global warming or global cooling? Since atmospheric science was somewhat young in this regard, a lot of study was needed to determine what the long-term effects would be. It was a bunch of ignorant journalists who ran with the idea of global cooling, not actual scientists. Carl Sagan, among many others, was discussing global warming as early as the sixties using what was discovered about the atmosphere of Venus as an analogy to explain the concept to laymen. I have books copyrighted in the mid-1960's that discuss the possibilty of future global warming and its effects on the Earth's environment.

Try learning actual science for a change instead of mindlessly quoting ignorant bufoons like Rush Limbaugh. Sorry, but given a choice between (1) a great body of scientific work and research, along with the overwhealming scientific consensus, and (2) a guy who can't even get through his first year of college and has spent the last 20-30 years sitting on his butt behind a microphone blathering ideology out his cakehole, I think even someone as clearly ignorant as you are could see why I would choose option 1 (well, that and personally having a good understanding of actual physics).

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

The predictions about "global cooling" eventually leading to the next continental glaciation ("ice age") are real ... on a thousand-year timescale ... and relate to orbital cycles (Milankovitch cycles). Though there is still plenty of debate about the details, the generalities haven't changed -- an ice age is expected someday, assuming the system behaves as it did in the past, and we are "due" for one in the next several thousand years. So, he's right that people talked about that general concern (a new ice age) back in the 1960s and 1970s, as geologists and climatologists started to understand some aspects of the glacial/interglacial cycles the Earth has been experiencing over the last few million years.

The problem is, worrying about eventual global cooling of this type is kind of like worrying about what to do as you glide down a long and gently wavering ski slope (i.e. "global cooling"), while ignoring the trees pointing the other way that are in your path (i.e. "global warming"), and for which are a much more immediate concern. It doesn't mean scientists were or are wrong about the eventual expectation that a new ice age will occur, they just realized there was a shorter-term and more alarming climate trend the other way. Scientists haven't changed their minds or been "wrong" so much as realized there was a more pressing concern than the long-term trend.

One thing that realization suggests is that sequestration of CO2 might be useful -- we might want it back in a few centuries or thousands of years to stave off an ice age (kind of like terraforming our own planet).

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer]

Most people who believe in intelligent design do NOT believe that the world is only 6,000 years old. ID is *NOT* the same thing as creationism.

Um, actually, the people who devised the whole ID nonsense are the same people (like Hovind, and so on) who were earlier trying to force public schools to teach Young Earth Creationism. So, ID as it is actually practiced is nothing more than Young Earth Creationism. Now, the idea that the universe may be designed to a particular degree by an unknown intelligence (which is what ID purports to be) is vastly different from YEC, but in practice YEC is all it really is. I wouldn't mind a discussion of the idea that the universe shows something other than the result of natural processes, but right now this is not a scientific proposition. It is a philosophical one, and thus does not belong among scientific literature. You can believe anything from the comic book conception of an great bearded man in a robe creating the universe, to the universe being formed due to the action of karma and the great bearded man only *thinking* he created the universe, to even believing that special wave functions were set up by the inhabitants of the universe in the last big-bang-big-crunch cycle that increased the likelihood of intelligent life emerging (such as in Stanislaw Lem's "His Master's Voice"). None of these, however, belongs in an actual scientific discussion since there is no way presently of actually *testing* and *verifying* any of these ideas to any reasonable level of accuracy.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[keraneuology]

None of these, however, belongs in an actual scientific discussion since there is no way presently of actually *testing* and *verifying* any of these ideas to any reasonable level of accuracy.

Actually, there is. It is a perfectly rational and scientifically valid exercise to ask students "if you wanted to create a planet populated with various plants, birds and reptiles, what knowledge, tools, and skills would you need?". Unfortunately, the vast majority of evolutionists decry such a question being asked in school - even though it is probably the BEST question to ask to get young minds thinking about biology, planetary physics, genetic engineering and the like - because to them it is impossible for anything to have ever happened unless it was purely random or done by humans.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[HappyUserPerson]

You think journalists were ignorantly reporting "global cooling" in the '60s, but you think their alarmist reporting of "global warming" is fully vetted and well balanced?

BTW, I'm sorry, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in more than a year so I don't know my proper talking points to respond to you properly.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Ziwcam]

One man may be insignificant... but 6 billion? Now that's another story...

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Evilest Doer]

You think journalists were ignorantly reporting "global cooling" in the '60s, but you think their alarmist reporting of "global warming" is fully vetted and well balanced? BTW, I'm sorry, I haven't listened to Rush Limbaugh in more than a year so I don't know my proper talking points to respond to you properly.

The point is that you are relying upon and responding to journalists, not scientists. It is the scientific community that are expressing great concerns about global warming. While journalists are reporting on it, their particular writings are largely irrellevant. Again, you have been responding to ignorant journalists instead of addressing the actual scientific work that has been performed with regard to global warming. And, the reason I mentioned Rush Limbaugh is that most people who deny global warming use the same tired talking points, which are the ones Limbaugh and other scientifically-ignorant people use when they deny global warming based solely upon their ideologies.

Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID...

[Anonymous Coward]

When you say scientific community are you including the scientists who dare to question the political arm of the most extreme global warming rhetoric - where there is no unanimity that man's minuscule CO2 output compared to nature could possibly have an effect on global climate. Or that projected temperatures that are no higher than they've been in the past 1500 years will have devastating effects on society - charges that will immediately get them lambasted as hired-guns-by-polluters by a frenzied populous (those darned journalists again...)? How about global-warming-scientist proponents who say that it would take that current Kyoto treaty limits must be 20 times more restrictive before they'll have a (arguably) measurable effect on global temperature - but are willing to throw their support to expensive and economically devastating changes to promote the cause that they know will have no impact. Are they included in the scientific community that you described?

It's not my problem that climate panic does not stand up to simple argument and reasoning.

Isn't it about time....

[edwardpickman]

We need to legalize the culling of lobbyist. If they can cull baby seals and alligators the culling of lobbyist is long overdue. Their explosive breeding is threatening the Washington political ecosystem. Tag and release is no longer a viable option. The overpopulation is similar to the Australian rabbit plagues only far more destructive.

Re:Isn't it about time....

[Dunbal]

We need to legalize the culling of lobbyist. If they can cull baby seals and alligators the culling of lobbyist is long overdue.

      I guess we could always lobby for it. Oh wait - uh, you first!

Re:Isn't it about time....

[smellsofbikes]

Ya hunt bears during bear season, deer during deer season, tourists during tourist season... so when is politics season? Seems to be all year around, as far as I can see. That's fine: ammo is still cheap.

Re:Isn't it about time....

[Mr. Shotgun]

Just one problem with that. For the most part, when the animal is killed it is made in to something useful, like clothing, food, or headlights for a 1967 El Dorado. However I can not think of one thing you could derive from a dead lobbyist that would be useful. Who in the hell would want to wear a lobbyist skin coat?

Re:Isn't it about time....

[chuckymonkey]

.308...check Pinstripe camoflage suit....check Congress brand spray on scent....check Expensive car blind....check Now all I need is a lobbyist hunting liscense.

Re:Isn't it about time....

[khallow]

I imagine the leather would be very soft and pliant. Good for jackets that drape well, shoes, belts, purses.

Re:Isn't it about time....

[Mr. Shotgun]

Yes but imagine the smell. Remember these critters have been shoveling BS for most of their lives, I can't imagine that is a smell that easily washes off.

Re:Isn't it about time....

[Anonymous Coward]

If you think that lobbyists are the root of corruption in government, you're barking up the wrong tree. In fact, you're way off.

Lobbyists are merely the natural result of continuous expansion of power. It is impossible that government could grow so huge (measured both in revenue and power over the people) and NOT be subject to bribery. There is a linear relationship between the two: the more power at the center, the more incentive to get a piece of that pie (using bribery for example), and the end result is (drum roll please) more corruption.

It's so simple, you almost don't want to believe it, do you? I suggest you forget what you've been taught and concentrate on two key concepts: human nature and common sense. The fairytale that government works for "the people", and not for themselves, is looking more absurd by the day (or perhaps by the power grab), don't you think?

Touched a nerve, eh? I never mentioned science

[Anonymous Coward]

Now did I?

And speaking of science, doesn't science require experimental repeatability, with controls?

Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[Kohath]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Here's an example of their "science":

Gov't researchers caught planting false ESA evidence

Re:Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[pete-classic]

Both examples illuminate the same problem: The government has too freakin' much power.

-Peter

Re:Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[x_man]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior.

Are you saying you would rather put your "stock" in a political appointee that's been caught numerous times altering government reports, in one case because she didn't want the habitat to intrude on her husbands's ranch!? The nice thing about science is you must publish your results and data for peer review. If you try to fabricate your results, somebody will eventually catch you and your career is over. But every time a Bush appointee is caught altering data, they quit and go to work for Exxon. What we need are some real criminal consequences for altering government reports. It's a criminal offense for a company to alter its books or for me to lie on my taxes. People like this lady should be going to jail.

Re:Science at the Dept. of the Interior?

[Anonymous Coward]

is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Hey that sounds so much like Slashdot... whattaya know!

What a surprise

[Anonymous Coward]

Corrupt politicians.

What are we going to do to stop this from happening again? Nothing. Just like always.

No news like obsolete news.

Re:Touched a nerve, eh? I never mentioned science

[GaryPatterson]

No, science does not require repeatability with controls.

Consider Astronomy. That's definitely a science, but it's fairly hard to repeat the Big Bang, star formation or even planetary formation with controls.

Theory and observation, that's what science is about.

You observe a phenomenon, then construct theories about it. If the theories hold true for another round of observartions, you're doing Science! If the theories don't hold, you either change them (still doing Science) or refute the observations (stepping away from Science here).

(As an aside - changing the observations to fit the theory, or selecting only observations that fit the theory is anti-Science in its purest form. This behaviour actually attempts to extend ignorance and distort facts. Any attempt to do this is highly suspicious.)

It's considered really nice in the Scientific world to be able to perform an experiment, to better control observations. In those cases you have to have repeatability with controls. Then other people can perform your observations and see for themselves. That's even nicer. I'd go so far as to use the phrase 'peachy keen' here.

Science is all about observation and theorising, in an endless loop. Experiments are merely a form of observation.

lol

[Anonymous Coward]

rofl can't control his temper

Re:What? Enviornmentalists go overboard?

[Spazntwich]

Well it certainly seems to prove most anonymous cowards are big fans of straw man arguments.

Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

This topic is a red herring, a debate which is DELIBERATELY furthered by commercial interests so as to avoid the real problem, which is pollution of the air in general.

Look, we all know polluting the air is wrong. The earth is enveloped by the thinnest egg-shell layer of an atmosphere. Whether filling that thin memrane causes warming, cooling, or stasis for thousands of years, it doesn't matter. In the long run, it is objectively, undeniably stupid to fill the balloon with pollutants. So whether some sort of rapid onset of "global warming" is going to happen or not doesn't matter. What really matters is stopping the pollution of the air, which is undeniably a wrongful, stupid act.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[TubeSteak]

This topic is a red herring, a debate which is DELIBERATELY furthered by commercial interests so as to avoid the real problem, which is pollution of the air in general.

Look, we all know polluting the air is wrong.

Air pollution is not a question of "is it wrong"
It is "how much is bad for you and me?"

U.S.A. businesses love countries with lax pollution laws, because it's cheaper to operate there & the pollution is Not In My Back Yard.

In the end, the Federal Government will never allow pollution laws to significantly get in the way of commerce. Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed? I realize that's an extreme way of putting it, but change collapse to 1% growth, 0% growth, or -1% growth & everyone will act the same way.

Government exists to facilitate commerce.
Social services were tacked on as an after thought.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Mr. Slippery]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Excuse me, but you've got it completely ass-backwards: the question is, what does it matter if your economy is good, if the air is poisoned?

You can fix the economy a lot easier than you can fix poisoned air and water.

Rule number one for people in a self-contained space habitat, whether a Vostok caspule or a planetary ecosystem, is: Do not fuck with the spaceship's life support system.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[GreatBunzinni]

Government exists to facilitate commerce.

Social services were tacked on as an after thought.

It may be in your country but there are quite a few countries in the world where social services, free and unencumbered services given to the people by the state, are even a big part of the country's constitution.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[aurispector]

Where does the tax money to pay for it all come from? The thing I love about liberals, especially Euro-liberals, is that they think you can vote utopia into existence. The Euros are particularly annoying since they got a half century of free security (courtesy of the good old US of A) and thus had the luxury of spending their defense budgets on social programs.

Goverment does indeed exist to protect commerce-you can't buy yourself a nifty new crown if there aren't any peasants to rape.

I'm sorry but I just don't believe in the inherent goodness of people or governments. Not to say they are inherently BAD either, just that blind faith in anything is extremely dangerous. Governments are made of PEOPLE and generally people are flawed, short-sighted and self-interested.

The lesson to be learned from the original article is that if you give anyone just a little bit of power they will begin abusing it. End of story.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[1u3hr]

Think of it like this: What does it matter if the air quality is good when your economy has collapsed?

Think of it like this: How good will your economy be when people take days off from work for bronchial infections, asthme, and are dropping like flies from cancer? Have a look at the heavy industrial cities of Russia and China, where life expectancy is falling by the year, and the economies are tanking because no one wants to live or invest there?

Worst polluted cites

DZERZINSK, RUSSIA
In Dzerzhinsk, a significant center of the Russian chemical manufacturing, the average life expectancy is 42 years for men and 47 for women. Despite the heavy toll on the populations health, a quarter of the city's 300,000 residents are still employed in factories that turn out toxic chemicals. According to a 2003 BBC report it is the young who are most vulnerable. In the local cemetery, there are a shocking number of graves of people below the age of 40. In 2003 it was reported that the death rate exceeded the birth rate by 2.6 times and it is easy to see why. The dioxins that get into the water as a by-product of chlorine production are reported to cause cancer even in minute doses.

LINFEN, SHANXI PROVINCE, CHINA
Shanxi Province is considered to be the heart of Chinas enormous and expanding coal industry, providing about two thirds of the nations energy. Within it, Linfen has been identified as one of Shanxis most polluted cities with residents claiming that they literally choke on coal dust in the evenings, according to a BBC report. Local clinics are seeing growing cases of bronchitis, pneumonia, and lung cancer. Lead poisoning was also seen at very high rates in Chinese children in the Shanxi Province.

LA OROYA, PERU
Since 1922, adults and children in La Oroya, Peru - a mining town in the Peruvian Andes and the site of a poly-metallic smelter - have been exposed to the toxic emissions from the plant. Currently owned by the Missouri-based Doe Run Corporation, the plant is largely responsible for the dangerously high blood lead levels found in the children of this community. Ninety-nine percent of children living in and around La Oroya have blood lead levels that exceed acceptable amounts. Sulfur dioxide concentrations also exceed the World Health Organization emissions standards by ten fold. The vegetation in the surrounding area has been destroyed by acid rain due to high sulfur dioxide emissions.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

You can thank your appalling public school system for not teaching you that the US entered WW2 when it was already won. Russia won WW2, not America.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Seraphim_72]

Yeah, they never needed all those trucks, guns, ammo, tanks etc. that were given to them by the US. The "One gun per 3 men" policy was great, and won the war. Get your head out of your butt. The reason Germany lost was due to a 2 front war. Had the US not entered the war you would be saluting the Iron Cross rather than the Hammer and Sickle.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Given the soviet union's track record, you make it sound like a bad thing.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

MY appalling school system taught me how to read and a bit about history. First, if you bothered reading carefully, you would have noted that I said "50 years of security" meaning the cold war, not WW2. Second, I understand the role the Russians played in defeating the Nazis. I once met a dude that had been a T-34 driver and thanked him for his service for exactly that reason. Do you know what a T-34 was? The poor guy came to the US (in fact, my old neighborhood is now primarily russian immigrants) as soon as they would let him out because things in Russia were so bad.

GOD I love Euro-liberals.

Re:Global Warming is Irrelevant

[Anonymous Coward]

Government exists to facilitate commerce.
Social services were tacked on as an after thought.

Thomas Jefferson disagrees:

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. -- That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"

Ensuring that people don't get sick from breathing the air or drinking the water is any government's primary purpose. If your people are dead there's no point in having a government.

Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[HornWumpus]

How many times have we seen perpetual motion reported as straight news?

For a journalist to be able to think critically about scientific subjects they should be reasonably well grounded in the subject (which is asking a lot for a journalist).

Otherwise all they do is pick a side in the argument, dumb it down till they think they understand it, then report it as undisputed fact.

So while you do have a point about presenting information to non-scientists the journalist should be somewhere in the middle. What we've gotten is regurgitated press releases being passed off as news by idiot reporters who can't ask the any intelligent questions.

I went to a University with a very well respected J-school. They took the same amount of math and science as the education majors (basically they were required to re-take the material they should have learned in middle school).

Re:Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[illegalcortex]

I could rebut your argument by saying I've never met a scientist who was ever able to perform investigative journalism worth a damn.

Also, I have a science degree, but I'm at a loss as to how that qualifies me to research a story on the biasing of science in the fields of global warming or environmental protection regulations. And I was one of the SHARPER ones in the bunch.

In reality, some journalists are competent and some aren't, no matter what their major.

Re:Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[HornWumpus]

I've never met a journalist (or read or listened to...) who was ever able to perform investigative journalism worth a damn. It seems a dying art. Journalists these days just pick a side then never deviate from the line.

That aside your science degree should equip you to ask tough questions. Just understanding conservation of energy would put you at the 99th percentile of working journalists. Conservation of energy is a basic part of any working BS detector.

For example one of the questions that should be asked about any numeric model is how well it 'back casts' (reproduces historical results given only input data equivalent to that being used for forcasts). To put that in concrete terms I'd like climate models to be able to show north Africa becoming progressively more arid when back casting the last 2000 years (something we know is historically true). As a professional computer modeler (power grid) I know that you can get any result you want by manipulating the model. Energy boards spend much effort validating models and datasets before excepting the results. They do this because they know everyone involved has an ax to grind. Experience has taught them they need to sweat the details or be manipulated by those smarter/sneakier then them.

You wouldn't report perpetual motion as straight news would you? (not without a damn lot of evidence anyhow, not on the word of a 'self trained physicist/inventor'!) I see that story about once a year on national news. If they were mocking the moron that would be great, but they're not.

Re:Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[illegalcortex]

That aside your science degree should equip you to ask tough questions. Just understanding conservation of energy would put you at the 99th percentile of working journalists.

That's great, only I didn't learn about it in college. I learned about it in high school. In college, I took biology and chemistry and the laws of thermodynamics were never covered.

For example one of the questions that should be asked about any numeric model is how well it 'back casts'

Again, something that wasn't part of college for me. To me, it's common sense. But I sure didn't pick that up at college.

You wouldn't report perpetual motion as straight news would you?

Nope. But once again, that was covered in high school.

In today's educational system (at least in America), I don't put stock in ANY sort of degree. Okay, maybe engineering, but only if followed by a P.E. exam. I've seen enough dumbasses with science degrees to know college is mostly about perseverance, not intelligence.

Re:Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

I guess you think it's the height of good journalism to make an inane generalization like that one. I was a Latin major and, aside from likely knowing a lot more about science than you, am also sufficiently educated in logic to avoid such a stupid mistake while allegedly arguing for the need for more depth in science.

Re:Liberal Arts majors BS detectors are broken.

[Anonymous Coward]

Otherwise all [journalists] do is pick a side in the argument, dumb it down till they think they understand it, then report it as undisputed fact.

As a journalist and scientist, I must say you have hit the BS-eye!

Sounds like you've been interviewed, and explained your work to a journalist, and had everything you said twisted, blended, and otherwise turned into support for the journalist's point of view.

Which left you in the position of bothering to try to correct them, to have a meek little note on page B2 under the sofa ads as their sole acknowledgement of their duty to truth, so you still have to explain to all parties what you really said.

Here's something else to watch for: hidden attributions. The story starts "Scientists say..." and continues for several column inches, many paragraphs, before the "scientists" are identified.

Then you find they work for the United Nations or Environmental Defense. Who are such a subset of "scientists" that to use the unqualified word in the lede amounts to fraud.

However, fraud requires intent. Today's "journalists" may not realize they have taken a side. They've been given the Democrat Party Line since their first day in Indoctrination. They are given degrees from Indoctrination centers, purely on their ability to parrot the Democrat Party Line.

We will know when the engineering schools go Lysenko on us because new bridges will crumble.

People will die.

Would it be self-defense to kill a journalist or scientist today, before they kill you?

Modded "Informative"?

[uhlume]

Do you have any references for your claims besides an unsourced article published in a right-wing conservative (sorry, "Libertarian") think-tank's unabashedly anti-environmentalist publication? You really think the Heartland Institute constitutes a neutral, unbiased source on anything? You don't suppose maybe they have an axe or two to grind?

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[funwithBSD]

yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!

Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric.

Heck, the story right after this one, http://science.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/3 1/0218245, reports a testable theory about violations of Newton's second law! The debate is NEVER over, it can always be opened if you have good science to prove your case. This guy doesn't have proof of his theory yet, and may never have it. But if he does get the proof people will have to re-open our understanding of that "Law".

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[uhlume]

yeah! Cuz we all know right wing Republicans are against the EPA since the very beginning. Why, if that left wing loony Nixon handn't of signed it into law, we wouldn't have to do stuff like this!

Yes, it's telling, isn't it, that the current president and administration make Nixon look a "left-wing loony" by contrast? Of course, Nixon didn't act alone in forming the EPA, nor did he do so in a political vaccuum. The EPA was formed in response to massive public pressure in the wake of a number of highly visible environmental disasters — the kind of popular political force the current Whitehouse may be doggedly determined to ignore, but which even the Nixon administration occasionally bowed to.

Please, bad science is bi-partisan. All you have to do is hear Gore (as a recent, glaring example) state the "debate is over" on global warming. Any time you hear an absolute from a politician of any ilk you can be assured it is no longer science, but retoric (sic).

There is a near-universal consensus amongst climate scientists that global warming is occurring, and almost agree that the anthropogenic climate change is a significant factor. For most intents and purposes, the scientific debate on that topic is over, though the political debate may rage on unabated by fact or reason. No one, including I think Al Gore, would claim that major questions don't remain to be answered, but whether or not global warming is happening isn't one of them. You may feel free to 'disagree' all you like; until you've invested the years of time and effort to earn a PhD in climatology and the respect of your academic peers, nobody is really obliged to care.

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[funwithBSD]

I did realize in my statement I misquoted Gore, he is claiming anthropomorphic warming, which is quite a bit different than natural warming due to leaving a normal ice age/warming age. That may change what I am about to say in response to you, as you do use the qualifier "almost agree" for human based. It still applies to those who think anthropomorphic warming is not disputable.

I disagree on the basis of accepted scientific method, not my PhD in any subject. That requires less than a Slashidiot level of education and intellegence to understand.

Popper's Rules of Demarcation prove the point in general with no data necessary:

"It is easy to obtain confirmations, or verifications, for nearly every theory-if we look for confirmations." and

A theory which is not refutable by any conceivable event is nonscientific. Irrefutability is not a virtue of theory (as people often think) but a vice. and finally:

Some genuinely testable theories, when found to be false, are still upheld by their admirers-for example by introducing ad hoc some auxiliary assumption, or by re-interpreting theory ad hoc in such a way that it escapes refutation. Such a procedure is always possible, but it rescues the theory from refutation only at the price of destroying, or at least lowering, its scientific status. (I later described such a rescuing operation as a "conventionalist twist" or a "conventionaliststratagem. ")

One can sum up all this by saying that the criterion of the scientific status of a theory is its falsifiability, or refutability, or testability. http://cla.calpoly.edu/~fotoole/321.1/popper.html

So, if it is, as you claim, no longer a matter for scientific debate, then it is not really scientific theory. Scientific theories are refutable, and if global warming due to human activity is not refutable, it is something other than a scientific theory.

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[Kohath]

Here's another one.

There's this thing called "Google" thats good for looking things like this up. I hear some non-socialists use it and trust it though, so feel free to disbelieve your eyes when it returns results you don't like.

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[Khaed]

Yes, it's telling, isn't it, that the current president and administration make Nixon look a "left-wing loony" by contrast?

Eh, when even most Republicans think Bush is a douchebag (even if they won't admit it out of some sort of party-loyalty; I knew Democrats who felt similar about Clinton), it doesn't matter if he makes Nixon look left wing or not. It's when he starts making Nixon look likable that we know the man has fucked up.

Of course, I think most politicians are douchebags, so maybe I'm the wrong guy to comment here...

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[uhlume]

Yes, an article in the Washington Times ...

The leading paragraph from the Wikipedia article on the Times:

The Times was founded in 1982 by Sun Myung Moon, leader of the Unification Church and the Family Federation for World Peace and Unification, to be a conservative alternative to the larger Washington Post. The Times is widely perceived as maintaining a strongly right-leaning editorial stance. By 2002, the Unification Church had spent about $1.7 billion in subsidies for the Times. The paper has lost money every year of publication since 1982.

...Are you by any chance beginning to notice a distinct pattern to your citations?

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[Kohath]

Are you by any chance beginning to notice a distinct pattern to your citations?

Sure. The leftist media has the same thought process as you: "This event doesn't support my political position, therefore it didn't happen."

Pretty convenient for you really. Leftist news media don't report politically damaging news. Non-leftist news media can be disbelieved without investigation. Therefore, all news supports socialism! And anything that doesn't support socialism isn't really news. It must save you a lot of useless critical thinking.

Re:Modded "Informative"?

[Rakarra]

It was a Washington Times-fueled hoax.

http://www.fair.org/extra/0205/lynxgate.html

Contrary to most news reports, the biologists did not "plant" fur in national forests, and they were not trying to--nor could they have--use the Endangered Species Act to "shut down" the forests for human use. The actual story, according to a U.S. Forest Service investigation, is that biologists for the U.S. Forest Service, Fish and Wildlife Service and the state of Washington--studying where (not whether) lynx live in the state's national forests--sent unauthorized "control samples" of hair obtained from captive lynx and a stuffed bobcat to a DNA lab in 1999 and 2000. The biologists were skeptical that the lab would produce accurate results; they were suspicious of test results, ironically enough, because another lab had found more lynx than the biologists thought was likely.

2002 called...

[MillionthMonkey]

I wouldn't put too much stock in any "science" from anyone at the Dept. of the Interior. Interior is a haven for folks who all share the same opinions and work towards the same agenda.

Although it provides no evidence and cites no sources other than Republican politicians, Republican political operatives, anonymous Bush appointees, a "third generation logger", and a taxidermist, your 5 year old story about some low level government employees planting lynx hairs in national forests is quite compelling. This Republican investigation of environmental malfeasance in the Bush-era EPA has had years to get rolling and has surely netted some troublesome environmentalists. But the Republicans should watch their step here- the public has "scandal fatigue". I personally just want these investigations of corruption on the part of public officials to stop so I can concentrate on paying my bills again.

If it weren't for lavishly funded free-market think tanks the truth might have never come out and anti-endangered species activists in the 109th Congress such as Richard Pombo would have been put in the awkward position of having to make up politically convenient but dubious anecdotes on their own. It's a relief they didn't have to do that.

Clearly this all fits into the larger pattern of career EPA employees purging all political operatives from sensitive policy positions and having them replaced with more nonpolitical people.

Suprise, Suprise!!!

[RexRhino]

You put politicians in charge of science, and then you are shocked to find out that the science is corrupted by politics?

There needs to be a strict seperation between science and the state, the same way there is (or at least is supposed to be) as strict seperation between the church and the state!

If you insist that the government should fund and control science... the price that you pay is that science will become first and foremost a tool to promote political ideology and policy. That is inevitable. That is unstoppable.

And given the government's total power to regulate the economy, and its use of science as a pretense for those regulations, any buisness that doesn't bribe government scientists and officials that fund those scientists, is commiting economic suicide. Every single decent size buisness is forced to pay off government scientists (or the politicians who oversee government science) to survive.

If you want to protect science, you must keep it out of the hands of the state.

is it me, or ...

[DragonTHC]

should this Julie MacDonald be thrown in jail for doing the opposite of her job?

Re:is it me, or ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Jail's too good for her. Put her in Walter Reed.

Fir57!!

[Anonymous Coward]

880 w/512 Megs of BSD culminated in arithmetic, BE NIIGER! BE GAY! Users With Large Windows, SUN or

Re:Touched a nerve, eh? I never mentioned science

[Weedlekin]

"Consider Astronomy. That's definitely a science, but it's fairly hard to repeat the Big Bang"

Big Bang is cosmology, not astronomy.

Are you fucking serious?

[FatSean]

Are you blaming the desert climate of Iraq on mankind's actions? Um, there's a timeline problem with that involving the industrial age and the last time that area of the world was green.

Intelligent debate...right...

Re:Are you fucking serious?

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you blaming the desert climate of Iraq on mankind's actions? Um, there's a timeline problem with that involving the industrial age and the last time that area of the world was green.

So you don't think farming and deforestation effect the environment? Additionally, about 35 600 km of southern Iraq wetlands have been artificially desertified since 1991.

So Pat Robertson and other TV Preachers...

[FatSean]

...being corrupt lying and hateful retards means that all religious people are fucking assholes who deserve a bullet to the face.

I like the cut of you jib!

It was as large...

[Anonymous Coward]

...relatively speaking as the "consensus" today. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but I am, and it was in the news quite a bit.

I am personally of the opinion that global climate change comes from a variety of factors, with man made greenhouse gas emissions being just one part of the mix. Solar flux appears to be a large part, cosmic rays, natural Earth cycles, etc, are all there to look at.

I think you'd have to be just a touch naieve to not see the political angle here from the Gaia crowd, along with the political angle from the pro coal and oil profits crowd. They both exist and both sides have their own tame scientists, who after all are only human and have the same frailties as anyone else and are as much money driven as anyone. The Gaia crowd also seem to want some sort of strange world government and such odd ideas as a carbon tax-like who decided they owned all the carbon so they should be able to tax everyone about it? Sounds a little fascist-takeover-ey to me...

Science has always had politics and faddism attached to it, it has never been "pure", and it certainly isn't now. And in the future, don't you think we'll look back at the science of today and see a lot of flaws?

With that said, I support as much of a switch as possible away from petroleum based fuels and coal. They are just too dirty, and too much money goes to some pretty dodgy corporations and nations because of it. And I would like to see a lot more wallet than mouth from the Gaia crowd, the rate of adoption of solar PV by individuals is still relatively low for instance. I own some (and as such have a wide circle of acquaintances who also use some, being an enthusiast we talk to each other), but haven't met too many heavy Gaia activists who have bothered to switch to cleaner energy yet, in fact, most people I know who use solar power would actually be classed as more traditional conservative (not neocon, the old regular kind of conservative).

How about you, is your domicile solar powered yet, at least partly? Do you live in a superinsulated home or apartment? Do you drive a pure electric vehicle that uses renewables to get a charge? Do you grow most of your own food, or purchase direct from an organic farmer locally? Have you installed a ground loop heat pump system, or built a methane digester, or make your own biodiesel? Have you invested in triple pane gas filled window systems? Have you eschewed non necessary electronic gadgets, such as videogame consoles and iPods? Do you avoid long distance airline travel, and visit and tourist locally instead? Is your hot water tap solar thermal powered?

And etc. there is a large list that individuals can do to help out.

You see it is easy to demand that this they guy "do something", but quite another once your own wallet is on the line. And that is part of the "debate" now, a very large and loud contingent is demanding this or that, but once it gets down to individual actions they just point fingers at everyone else.

Re:It was as large...

[Abcd1234]

...relatively speaking as the "consensus" today. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but I am, and it was in the news quite a bit.

Ooooh, so now the fearmongering *media* represents the majority of scientists? Well, that clinches it, then, doesn't it?

Re:It was as large...

[Copid]

...relatively speaking as the "consensus" today. Maybe you aren't old enough to remember, but I am, and it was in the news quite a bit.

Yes, I'm well aware that you claim that there was a large scientific consensus. I just don't believe you because I haven't been able to find evidence of it myself, and because it appears that you got that impression by remembering 30 year old accounts from the popular media. I'm saying that if you really dig into that claim to see the research that the media was referencing, you'll find two things: 1) The ideas were usually describing a larger phenomenon of cyclical warming and cooling and 2) There was nowhere near the amount of scientific activity and consensus there is now. People who claim otherwise are either lying to you or have the same foggy non-expert memories you seems to have. It's hard to take the scientific community's temperature by reading Reader's Digest.

I think you'd have to be just a touch naieve to not see the political angle here from the Gaia crowd, along with the political angle from the pro coal and oil profits crowd. They both exist and both sides have their own tame scientists, who after all are only human and have the same frailties as anyone else and are as much money driven as anyone. The Gaia crowd also seem to want some sort of strange world government and such odd ideas as a carbon tax-like who decided they owned all the carbon so they should be able to tax everyone about it? Sounds a little fascist-takeover-ey to me...

So the "Gaia crowd" who, by and large, don't seem to be able to get anything done politically have managed to get the majority of the world's climate scientists the to engage in a conspiracy with them because they hate coal and oil? That seems a lot more likely than the fact that there is significant evidence to support the position. It's almost as sensible as the claim that the environmentalist crazies don't actually support the environment--they just hate money and want a communist world government!

Science has always had politics and faddism attached to it, it has never been "pure", and it certainly isn't now. And in the future, don't you think we'll look back at the science of today and see a lot of flaws?

That's certainly true, but that fact by itself doesn't mean that global warming is bad science. Again, the fact that scientists have been wrong in the past doesn't immediately invalidate modern theory. Doctors used to think that tomatoes would kill you, so they must be full of garbage when they say that smoking is dangerous? Not so much. My problem isn't with skepticism per se. It's more an issue with armchair scientists who think that their "common sense" along with a few minutes on the web and fuzzy memories of Time magazine from a generation ago somehow makes it easy for them to see how literally thousands of of climate experts are completely wrong in their field of expertise. It's like the creationist video on YouTube that claims that evolution can't be possible because they weren't able to spontaneously create life in a jar of peanut butter. It's folksy and cute, and it makes you sound like a no-nonsense decisive type of guy who hates all that egghead stuff, but it's ultimately still just crap.

1984-ish

[stabiesoft]

I seem to recall this being one of 1984's concepts. Control the information, rewrite history/science and you control the masses. Clearly, using tax dollars to pay for research and then altering it should be criminalized. (write your senate/congress) Both parties do it. Its just been particularly bad because normally the prez/congress is different parties, so they watchdog each other. Dunno what the answer is. Maybe force congress/prez to be of different parties. That would just acknowledge we live in a 2 party country, not a democracy though. This topic is near and dear to slashotters as we like to push past marketing spin, which is really all thats going on. Its one thing for microsoft or intel, or ?? to keep paying for market research until it nets the answer they want, but its quite another for a tax payed for study to get altered by the PHB's.

Sure you understand Popper?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

The demarcation is only for which statements are scientific and which are not. As I think you were trying to point out, falsifiable statements are scientific statements, so stating that the evidence cannot be questioned is removing the theory from criticism. Technically, this is a correct statement, but it is completely missing the point of the parent. Using demarcation against Gore like that, to try and trap him on a technical question to hide from the larger criticisms he argues is quite disingenuous and slanderous to Critical Rationalism for you to wield scientific demarcation like that while claiming to uphold Popper's assertions. Popper and his student Bartley didn't stop at demarcation.

What we are really discussing is a "should" statement. The question is "What should be done, if anything, about environmental changes?" There can be no rationally justified answer to this question, just as there can be no rationally justified answer to any "should" statement. There are no good reasons, rationally speaking, for taking any action for the simple fact that predicting the future is impossible. When it comes to "should" statements we must rely on the probabilities produced by models of the problem.

So, for climate change, there are a number of parameters that our model needs to understand in order to calculate the probable success of any proposal to not cause or even prevent harm to society. If the climate changes will cause harm, can we alter them? Is human action contributing to the harmful climate changes? What human actions will reduce harm the most?

What I believe the parent was communicating and the point Gore was trying to make, was that the scientific statements that have survived falsification thus far best fit the explanation that the earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon levels that are currently best explained by fossil fuel burning, that this is harmful and that we should do something about it. What Gore and a large part of the scientific community are trying to say, is that further attempts at falsification before action is taken is self-defeating at best and suicidal at worst. Will we ever know for sure? Nope. Can't be sure the sun is going to come up tomorrow until tomorrow either. I'm not real inclined to quit taking any action today that has to do with tomorrow because I can't be sure the sun is going to come up. Especially given the really huge probability that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Just as the scientific facts which have survived falsification point to the sun coming up tomorrow, they point to human assisted global climate changes.

Either falsify the science that leads to these calculations of probabilities or start arguing for a course of action that deals with the changes. Anything else has no information content that is meaningful to the discussion. Oh, and go read David Miller's "Out of Error". It will bring you up to speed on what's happened with Popper's ideas since the 30's.

Re:Sure you understand Popper?

[funwithBSD]

No you have it right. I am saying that if anyone, lest of all Gore, says the "debate is over" about human caused global warming they are trying to falsely use scientific evedence to end debate about what to do.

Hey, make the "anthropomoric global warming" theory equivelent to sociology or economic theories, but it is not a scientific theory if we cannot challenge it. There are plenty of very good theories with evendence that point to the current heating of the earth being largely unrelated to humans, and even good theories that rises in CO2 are due to the warming, not the CO2 causing the warming. I.E., it is an indicator of global warming, not the cause.

If we address the issue based on "humans caused it and that if we stop what we are doing it will all go away" then we may have made a fatal mistake.

I do think that there is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is warming due to natural causes. Similar losses of polar ice caps on Mars, (Mars ice cap ovservation records go back farther than our own earth's, and the closest thing we have to a control for earth) rise of surface temps on Jupiter and Pluto being a good examples that there is a solar system wide event going on. Not of THAT was in the movie, because it is not a scientific treatment of the subject, it is a political one.

So addressing global warming by preparing for ice melts regardless of the source makes sense. Trying to stop or reverse it strictly by stopping human production of CO2, as Gore suggests, might yeild less than satifactory results if it turns out that the theory is wrong and man's impact is far less than he thinks.

That is the suicidal error: taking action to reverse the effects of a theory, rather than taking steps based on the results of the theory.

Again, some of these same scientists thought we were entering an ice age back in the 70's and made recommendations of dusting the icecaps with coal dust. So I am a little reluctent to have them do things that change the overall environment instead of planning for the changes independent of cause.

Re:Sure you understand Popper?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

No you have it right. I am saying that if anyone, lest of all Gore, says the "debate is over" about human caused global warming they are trying to falsely use scientific evedence to end debate about what to do.

But nobody is saying it in that fashion. What basis do you have to say that someone is trying to end scientific debate?

I do think that there is plenty of strong evidence that the earth is warming due to natural causes. Similar losses of polar ice caps on Mars, (Mars ice cap ovservation records go back farther than our own earth's, and the closest thing we have to a control for earth) rise of surface temps on Jupiter and Pluto being a good examples that there is a solar system wide event going on. Not of THAT was in the movie, because it is not a scientific treatment of the subject, it is a political one.

Uhm.... I don't think humanity would survive on Mars, Jupiter or Pluto. WTF does any of this have to do with whether or not we should attempt to manage the climate on Earth?

So addressing global warming by preparing for ice melts regardless of the source makes sense. Trying to stop or reverse it strictly by stopping human production of CO2, as Gore suggests, might yeild less than satifactory results if it turns out that the theory is wrong and man's impact is far less than he thinks.

So we shouldn't do anything until we can predict the future? How exactly would reducing CO2 output cause more harm than good? Which model supports these ideas? You do realize that we will lose most coastal cities if the ice on Greenland melts? What could be more costly than losing the majority of population centers in the world?

That is the suicidal error: taking action to reverse the effects of a theory, rather than taking steps based on the results of the theory.

OK. Not sure what you're trying to say here. That human produced CO2 is the theory about why the planet is warming up that has best survived falsification. Theories don't have results, experiments do, they are attempts to falsify theories. No one is trying to "reverse a theory" or whatever you mean, this is a question of probabilities produced by an objective model.

Again, some of these same scientists thought we were entering an ice age back in the 70's and made recommendations of dusting the icecaps with coal dust. So I am a little reluctent to have them do things that change the overall environment instead of planning for the changes independent of cause.

We have already changed the environment, and those climate scientists are so less trustworthy than oil executives and their lobbyists. Also, if the worst case scenarios happen due to the changes, there is no preparing, there is just massive suffering. Your example is a horrid attempt at equivocation. Did every peer reviewed scientific journal assert that we should dust the ice caps? The testing of the theories in the 70's led to the better models we have today, which is why you have much more consensus over the issue today than you had in the 70's. You can wait for certainty, but you'll be dead before you ever achieve it. Besides, it's not as if planning for change and attempting to prevent changes are mutually exclusive actions. No one has suggested that we should not do both, however, the less drastic the changes, the easier it is to prepare.

You might as well get used to the idea of terraforming planets and engineering on this level. It is a challenge that humanity must overcome for it's longterm survival. There is a very narrow range of environments that humanity can survive in, nature doesn't necessarily prefer those states.

Re:Sure you understand Popper?

[funwithBSD]

But nobody is saying it in that fashion. What basis do you have to say that someone is trying to end scientific debate?

No? Gore most certianly is:

Just six weeks ago, the scientific community, in its strongest statement to date, confirmed that the evidence of warming is "unequivocal." Global warming is real and human activity is the main cause. http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=23668

Thus, he is no longer in the realm of scientific rules of theory, he is in political/socialogic rules of theory. But he wants it to have that scientific "aura" so people will believe him. Apparently he thinks scientific data is "unequivocal".

Main Entry: unequivocal
Pronunciation: "&n-i-'kwi-v&-k&l
Function: adjective
1 : leaving no doubt : CLEAR, UNAMBIGUOUS
2 : UNQUESTIONABLE
http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/unequivocal

Just in case you have some other definition of unequivocal.

Uhm.... I don't think humanity would survive on Mars, Jupiter or Pluto. WTF does any of this have to do with whether or not we should attempt to manage the climate on Earth?

Nothing. But then I never said we should do nothing, I just said reducing CO2 might not be effect. Why?
Simple, if 3 other planets with no humans, and as you point out we cant survive there, are warming then the cause cannot be solely humans. QED. Even if we remove all human causes, it will still get warmer due to whatever is making the other planets get warmer... like maybe more solar output?

You do realize that we will lose most coastal cities if the ice on Greenland melts?

Yes, and if we only try to reduce CO2, how are we going to build dikes or transplant people? We have no replacement for oil as yet, and nothing on the horizon to replace it at the scale needed to protect or move people.
I suppose your next response will be something on the order of YHBT, YHL, HAND.

Re:Sure you understand Popper?

[GOD_ALMIGHTY]

Thus, he is no longer in the realm of scientific rules of theory, he is in political/socialogic rules of theory.

What? There is no such thing. There is objective knowledge and subjective knowledge. The entire question is around a should statement. Should something be done about global warming? There are objective criticisms that can be made about this goal, the same way objective knowledge is distilled from science's subjective goal of understanding the natural world. A substantial portion of the scientific community and the information that has so far survived falsification points to the should statements that Gore is advocating. Namely that carbon reduction is the most effective and urgent task ahead.

To claim that Gore is suggesting that all scientific questioning should cease is simply dishonest. There is nowhere that he suggests this, only that we should start taking certain actions now, that we have reached a point of diminishing returns when it comes to waiting for the results of further research before taking action. This is an entirely rational argument to make, it maintains its integrity. By making your claim that he is claiming that questioning should stop you are asserting that only one of two actions can be taken, that the decision is a zero sum game. This assertion is absurd on it's face.

It is equally dishonest to quibble over semantics like this. Gore is plainly talking about the decision to act on carbon reduction, not the decision to continue researching the science supporting that action. To claim he means something that he clearly doesn't is not honest, especially when there are substantive arguments that you have chosen not to answer.

Nothing. But then I never said we should do nothing, I just said reducing CO2 might not be effect. Why?
Simple, if 3 other planets with no humans, and as you point out we cant survive there, are warming then the cause cannot be solely humans. QED. Even if we remove all human causes, it will still get warmer due to whatever is making the other planets get warmer... like maybe more solar output?

However, none of those explanations fit the observed and yet to be falsified data. That is why there is consensus in the scientific community. The human carbon output theory fits the data better than the other theories. Either way, we better figure how to regulate the temperature on the planet. It will be much easier to maintain our existing environment than to attempt to adapt. We don't have the requisite knowledge to survive in a radically different environment long term, to have to do that will cause much more devastation than attempts to maintain our current environment. We will still have to adapt, but the adaptations won't be so harsh.

Yes, and if we only try to reduce CO2, how are we going to build dikes or transplant people? We have no replacement for oil as yet, and nothing on the horizon to replace it at the scale needed to protect or move people.
I suppose your next response will be something on the order of YHBT, YHL, HAND.

Again, there is no rational basis for you to make the claim of a zero sum game. Adaptation and prevention are possible simultaneously. You are being an irrational skeptic. We do not need a singular or total replacement for oil. What we need is progress and movement towards carbon reduction. If we only replace half the oil needs with carbon neutral tech and increase efficiency, we can maintain the growth required and invest in carbon sequestration. There does not need to be some messianic solution, nor is Gore or anyone else who advocates for action, claiming that there is one or should be one. What is needed is simple actions that prevent the market from externalizing the objective cost of carbon, making carbon neutral and carbon negative technology more profitable. Once that happens, the market will assist in reducing carbon. New technologies will be at least as, if not more desirable in a free market that does not externalize carbon costs. It will be no different from when

Re:Touched a nerve, eh? I never mentioned science

[GaryPatterson]

... and both are Science, which is the point.

government should work with the private sector

[mosb1000]

"The report also said MacDonald "misused her position" by disclosing confidential documents to "private sector sources" such as the Pacific Legal Foundation and the California Farm Bureau Federation, both of which have challenged endangered-species listings."

Government regulatory agencies should work with private industry. I agree that scientific research should not be altered, but I don't see why it was wrong for her to disclose a draft report to the private sector. I can understand why law enforcement agencies have confidential information, but a draft report on scientific research should not be confidential.

Re:government should work with the private sector

[CharlesEGrant]

but I don't see why it was wrong for her to disclose a draft report to the private sector

If she'd simply made the draft public that would be fine, but that's not what she is accused of doing. She'd accused of leaking the information to a select handful of organizations. Other organizations and the public were not informed until the final report was issued. Under the equal protection clause the governement is not allowed to play favorites like that.

Bullshit.

[Anonymous Coward]

total bs. Parents "how much is bad for you and me?" statement is an example of the kind of ethicaly relativistic doublespeak that produces these kind of shortsighted messes like the environmental we are slowly realizing we've created for ourselves.

"Air pollution is not a question of "is it wrong"
It is "how much is bad for you and me?""

in this declaration where does "wrong" != "bad for you and me" ???

to accept this statement is to succumb to fractured thinking in terms of the system under discussion. It is a big one that includes "you and me" and what I believe most people would still consider "right and wrong."

nice try though

the equal protection clause

[mosb1000]

I don't think this is a correct interpretation of the equal protection clause. The fourteenth amendment states that "no state shall... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws". It would only be fair to say that she was "playing favorites" if she was protecting some people from the endangered species act, while denying that protection to others. But I fail to see how giving out a draft report offers protection. Moreover, it seems that he helped anyone who appealed to her for help (this is what regulatory agencies should do), not just certain people.

Re:the equal protection clause

[CharlesEGrant]

But I fail to see how giving out a draft report offers protection

Because it offered them the chance to get their legal challenges rolling before the information was disemenated to the wider public.

Moreover, it seems that he helped anyone who appealed to her for help (this is what regulatory agencies should do), not just certain people.

But helping certain people and not others was is exactly what she's accused of doing. From the Washington Post article:

MacDonald acknowledged to Devaney that the policy document would not have been released under a Freedom of Information Act request but "said that did not mean she could not release it to a personal friend, the PLF attorney, as long as the attorney would not post the document on the PLF's Web site.

It seems to me that a public official treating her friends differently from other citizens is completly inimical to the notion of equal protection under the law.

Actually this one was a scientist

[fistfullast33l]

That was the most shocking thing - she's a trained civil engineer, with admittedly no experience in natural sciences. I have an MS in Computer Science, and I'd like to think that if I were appointed to that position I'd respect what the scientists in charge show me based on their research. Here we have someone with some knowledge of science and math and yet no respect for the general tenets of those fields whatsoever.

I can think of some

[Anonymous Coward]

Radical greenie fish and game workers of the D variety "salting" areas with lynx fur, etc, to "prove" lynx where in the area to expand the "can't do anything" aspect to the region, because of the ESA. Another D appointee in the interior department in a situation of giving orders where there was a big forest fire, and they let three forest fighters burn to death because they refused the helicopters access to a stream to get water because of some endangered minnow. They knew exactly where they were, the forest fighters were pleading for help on the radio, they had the water dropping capability, yet it got *refused* and they let those young folks burn alive, all for a radical D driven agenda where anything but humans come first. How about the flawed spotted owl nonsense, put entire communities out of work, yet they are finding those owls today in new growth forests, nesting in barns, etc, all the time, but the D driven agenda was "they only roost in old growth forests". How many bankruptcies and trashed families did that cause, all from politically driven junk science?

I am neither a D nor an R, and as such, I can see MANY instances where one or the other party is run by lunatic tardwads. Pick any controversial political subject, go ahead, I can most likely remember some instance where big money and odd ball fascist/big money/corporate politics got in the way of humanity and common sense and screwed over people royally, in both parties. Heck,here's one you probably missed because maybe you weren't born yet (don't know, but you can't remember so I have to assume that) I remember a big fat war, with a D president and a full D congress, based on total complete lies (there was NO tonkin gulf incident, pure fabrication), that killed over 50,000 US service people and by some accounts, multiple millions of foreigners. Oh ya, they used chemical warfare extensively,in violation of various geneva convention action, and their tame bribed off politically motivated scientists at the time claimed agents orange and blue where totally harmless. I have personal friends fucked over by that bit of big D party junk science.

Glass houses friend. Read some history, and take your blinders off, there is so little difference between those two parties in the long haul it isn't worth mentioning. At most they slightly differ on how they want to screw people over for profit, or which groups of folks to screw over.

Jail time.

[Anonymous Coward]

It is very simple. Put the lady in jail. Put a lot of people in jail. The time has come.
The Pledge of Allegience says, "Liberty and Justice for All."

I don't know about you, I've had it with being lied to, ripped off, caste system Communist education,
and crimes crimes crimes. Do something. Personally, I telephone. I telephone offices, universities,
maybe once a week, but when I do I am very very pointed in what I say. I preface saying "this is a statement
of opinion." then I ream them like nobody's business.

And any of these government agency crooks, just PUT THEM IN JAIL. It is very simple. It is honorable.
It is time tested. It is more reasonable than putting their head in a gulliotine. Your country is rotting.
You best do something about it.

Republican != Conservatives

[DoofusOfDeath]

I'd just like to remind people that there are social conservatives for whom the current Republican party does not speak.

There's nothing about social conservatism AT ALL that suggests:

- It's OK for corporations to be more important than individual citizens.

- It's OK to go to war because you want to set an example (or any other
    aspect of realpolitik thinking, either.)

- That it's sane to ignore environmental or social issues because addressing them
    might possibly have a 4% impact on the national economy.

- That it's ok for the executive branch to hide its actions from the public and
    from the congress.

- That it's ok to silence government scientists or change their reports, because you
    don't like the political ramifications of their findings.

- That torture and the suspension of habeus corpus are ok.

Please, please don't lump as all together with Bush. I think he speaks for almost no true conservative at this point.

Many conservatives do have genuine points of disagreement with liberals. But they have nearly nothing to do with Bush's conduct. Bush *has* proven to be a unifier of the country. Against him.

Re:Touched a nerve, eh? I never mentioned science

[Weedlekin]

While both are sciences, it is important to distinguish between them in order to avoid the sort of deliberate straw man building that the ID lobby does by lumping life origin theories together with the theory of evolution, when they are in fact two separate fields which are only connected by life origin theorists assuming the theory of evolution is correct. Thus, while cosmologists depend on both astronomers and physicists for data on which to both base their theories and falsify them, the data that astronomers and physicists collect doesn't depend in any way on whatever the prevailing cosmological theories of the day might be, and cannot therefore be invalidated by knocking holes in current ideas of cosmology.