Slashdot Mirror
Surgeon General Describes Censorship From Bush Administration
UniversalVM writes "The NY Times is reporting that the former Surgeon General in damaging testimony given to the senate describes how he was repeatedly censored by the Bush administration while speaking out about topics such as global warming, Stem cell research and so on. The effort was to 'water down' or weaken reports on important issues to suit Republican Agenda. He describes how he attended one meeting where Global Warming was being described as a 'Liberal Agenda' and being dismissed. He tried to intervene thinking that the people there did not understand the science so he set about explaining it to them, the result? He was never invited back."
Nothing for you to see here. Please move along.
On a more serious note, even if you think that global warming is a pile of horse manure, why would anyone object to the measures that are being suggested? Unless they owned a coal mine of course...
There's a lot of sense in heavy investment in nuclear, solar and wind power plus hybrid, diesel and electric vehicles even in a situation where the world isn't going wrong. Same with switching to CFLs and generally improving efficiency of resource usage etc... it's not like there are people who find clean air offensive... or at least I hope not.
Think of the Children; Sleep with your Sister
I'm not sure 2008 can come quickly enough.
I don't for a moment think that any of the potential presidential candidates and their future administrations will not be rife with corruption and political mumbo jumbo. However, the constant news of abuses of power and position to make hideously bad decisions has me regretting the past 7 years thoroughly.
We need Mr. T for president, or at least Secretary of Defense.
Thunderclone: ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE! ONE MAN ENTERS! TWO MEN LEAVE!
...Bush Administration And at what point does the meter raise to impeachment of the clan?
I don't condone censorship of scientists in any way, shape or form. But why is the Surgeon General talking about global warming? He should leave that discussion to the climate experts (e.g. Jim Hansen). There are too many armchair climatologists out there, which contributes to the misunderstandings about global warming.
Look Clinton had a BJ and they tried to get him out of office. Bush has been screwing up a war form day one, went in when the evidence said no WMD's. Hell he even tried to pion sept 11 on Iraq, tho the evidence just was not there. Toss in things like the wire tapping issue where illegal wire tapping's occurred even tho getting a warrant to do it was basically a rubber stamp, and nothing happened. This is not the first time someone has said bushes gang tried to change the facts, and force bad info down on the public. In the end Bush is a oil guy, he don't care about the environment or anything, just making his own cash. Yet some how he is still in office, and Clinton who ya was not perfect almost got tossed out because of a BJ, give me a break.
> Dr. Carmona said he was ordered to mention President Bush three times on every page of his speeches.
Absolutely breathtaking!
These are the methods of a tin pot dictator, not the leader of a great and worthy nation.
That Bush & Crew would put their own puffed up egos ahead of the health and well-being of their own countrymen says it all. Sigh.
Is it fascism yet?
... with regards to the Global Warming debate, is that people with no real knowledge on the subject (on both sides) persist in making declarations as if they were experts. This is further exacerbated, whether it's Hollywood loonies or right-wing religious fanatics, by their tendency to latch onto and espouse the most draconian of opinions. FWIW, in my opinion the Surgeon General has no more credibility on Global Warming than does Rush Limbaugh, and so his being asked to "stifle" does not bother me. Now, as regards stem cell research, that's a whole different ballgame.
The more you regulate a company, the worse its products become.
What does this have to do with technology? This story is not Slashdot worthy, in my humble opinion.
I guess the argument could be made that this is yet another example of censorship from the Bush administration, but frankly, it's not a very good one. Since when does the surgeon general speak authoritatively about global warming? I see nothing in his (Dr. Carmona) background which would lead me to believe he had the same depth of knowledge on the subject as the scientists who actually study the theory. The surgeon generals also complained about political pressure, but if we're having an argument based in reality, I'd be curious what political appointment doesn't feel some degree of political pressure. Nothing new here.
What really sucks about this to me is that hearing news of claims like this should really surprise us, but really...
How many of us read the title and were shocked and/or appauled?
Kinda sad that we're numbed to seeing stuff like this.
This is my signature. There are many like it but this one is mine.
How does that follow? If you frequently go off on some weird ass jargon-filled tangent about some obscure scientific esoterica that no normal person would ever care about, then sure, that's going to put a crimp in your social life, because it demonstrates a lack of social skills.
But if you give a layman a reasonable overview of some issue that's actually relevant to the discussion, while restraining your tendency to sneer at stupid questions, and patronize people just because they don't already know what you're talking about, then you might find that some people are actually capable of being interested.
Feynman did a lecture series on quantum electrodynamics that was specifically geared toward people who didn't know what the hell quantum electrodynamics was. If you want to see an example of someone explaining a hard to understand topic to a bunch of people who have no background in a manner that is both accurate and entertaining, I highly recommend picking it up.
ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
...just like tax cuts, military funding, and immigration control are part of the conservative agenda. I think it needs to be accepted that there are two sides to this argument, just like so many others. Bush does not believe that science has demonstrated a significant human contribution or significant human risk related to global climate change, and his policies are consistent with this view. This puts him in alignment with significant percentages of both the American public and the scientific community. The issue is unsettled, and the debate will continue for a long time I am sure. The idea that Bush is somehow exhibiting a special type of corrupt behavior by taking a stand on an issue and expecting his staff to back him up is just silly. We employ our leaders to represent our views with regard to public policy, and to oppose those who have opposite views. Liberals would like to see increased government regulation in response to the danger of global climate change. It's part of their agenda. And it's Bush's job as a Republican and (sometimes) a conservative to oppose these plans.
Unfortunately, when your funding is managed by a bunch of people who simply don't believe the science, and who have no interest in different points of view, you can't really succeed at this. No matter how noble a sentiment it is.
Well, 'good' policy is subjective -- if your goal is to have a policy which starts with the supposition that homosexuality is bad, or Intelligent Design is valid, or abstinence only sex education isn't an oxymoron
Not when you can convince people of such silly things as "our lives would be easier if Pi was 3". And, in the case of global warming, while there seems to be a majority of people who agree, as long as someone dissents you can claim that it's not fact, but opinion and theory and muddy the waters. An uncritical/uneducated public (who has been fed what you wanted them) won't be able to tell the difference.
Sadly, nowadays, politically inconvenient basically means you get shut down. Especially in the current administration which has the attitude that "what we say is right, no matter what the truth is". They're not interested in truth -- they're interested in their position, and pandering to their base. Reality be damned.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
- Malaria and other diseases
- heatwave deaths
- water quality
It sure would have been helpful to have talked about them over the last seven years.After World WarII, several Nazi leaders were tried for war crimes and crimes against humanity. Not everyone wanted to do that. Winston Churchill, for example, just wanted to execute those Nazis. But the USA insisted on fair trials, saying that it was important to establish the principle of the rule of law.
Back then, the USA had leadership that demonstrated to the world how even the most heinous crimes (particularly the Holocaust)—in which many millions of people died—can and should be handled according to law and principle.
Compare that with what George W. does today.
This Censorship is brought to you by:
The letter B and
The number 666.
Somehow, somewhere along the line, science allowed itself to be bought through sponsorship of research, and then politicized through endorsement of certain political agendas which were suggested to be incarnations of scientific truth. Now, science itself is sullied, and is forever going to be caught in this battle between special interest groups vying for control of an oblivious electorate.
I think Lou Dobbs said it well:
With the electorate asserting a strong impulse to be independent, and with populism exerting a significant influence in the 2006 midterm elections, there is a possibility that all of those incumbents in the House and Senate may have to consider the possibility of actually having to represent their constituents and the popular will, rather than corporate America, socio-ethnic special interest groups and the tens of thousands of lobbyists who represent every interest but that of the common good and the nation.
Lou Dobbs - July 11, 2007
He's talking about government in general, but the same could be applied to science and even large parts of the computer industry. If science wants to have respect again, it needs to get rid of the perception that loyalties and bribes have made it a partisan football.
technical writing / development
Because in partisan politics, you can't possibly be seen to agree with something your opponent is in favour of.
Once you concede they might be right on one or two points, and doing good work, then you can no longer paint them as wrong on all topics.
Admittedly, I've got to agree. If anything should be completely apolitical it would be something like the Special Olympics. Hell, I'm pretty sure Arnold attends such events -- though, he happily disagrees with Bush on a number of things. So he's not such a dogmatic Republican as that.
Of course, from the article, when you read:
it's pretty obvious that the White House will still try to put their own spin on it. Being accused of stifling the Surgeon General? Claim that he failed in his duty as an advocate for truth and science. They're trying to control the message even when they're the topic.
Cheers
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
It's that belief structure that makes democracy not work.
Who cares if he's republican, who cares if he's conservative. He's the president. That means he should act in the best interests of the nation WHETHER OR NOT he personally agrees with it. That means letting all sides be heard, not squelching things he doesn't agree with. That means doing things that his party may not like, because it's the right thing to do.
That type of thinking is why most elections are worthless nowadays, because you have people who tick a box for a party without caring about the person's beliefs or if that party really agrees with that they believe themselves.
You never realize how much manually made unmanaged "linked" lists suck, till you have src.link.link.link.link...
The problem is a large minority of Americans believe as Bush does that talking about these things makes them worse.
Well, take that "large minority" and all those that do not care and you entriely deserve the abysmally bad gouvernment you have at the moment. The unfait part is that the rest of the world also suffers from these obviously evil people...
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Yeah, all those climatologists are really liars. What do they know? A small number of inactive researchers, oil company shills and White Office spokespeople weigh a lot more than the climatological community.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
This sounds like something a Marketing Executive would say- "Make sure you mention the brand as many times as possible."
And that, friends, is how W got elected, and how every other president we ever have will get elected... through superior marketing.
Yeah, I read the article, and the whole time I kept thinking, why did he go along? Why didn't he stand up and say what he thought needed to be said, regardless of what political hacks were pressuring him??? In other words, what does "...would not allow him to speak..." really mean? He could have spoken about those things at any time, had he chosen. The worst they could have done was fire him, and just try to imagine the publicity that would bring to whatever issue he addressed. So, what I read from this is that he was a pushover, and now he regrets it. Don't get me wrong, what he's doing now is the right thing to do, given what has happened. It's just that he should have found his backbone a long time ago.
First of all, he has resigned. He is no longer in office. He's not blowing off his duties, he's unhappy with some of the tasks he was asked to perform. I think I've heard of senior military officers complaining after they resigned about orders from the Commander-in-Chief. Are they angling to be politicians too? Being appointed to a position (and that's what SG is, not a promotion from within the ranks of an officer corps) does not remove one's obligation to provide accurate information and good-faith opinions. To be constantly told to suppress scientific information and praise his Highness George II in speeches does not seem appropriate. (Neither was Clinton's firing of Jocelyn Elders.)
Because some of us, deep down, believe that with hard work, determination, and a little luck, we just might be the lucky guy stealing BILLIONS of dollars someday. I think many Americans, your correspondent not included, see such a transaction as nothing more than a prerogative of one in power. To the victor go the spoils; of course, George and Dick are certainly testing the extremes of the principle.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
Hmm, sounds fishy to me.
He was the Surgeon General, not those political appointees. He was the one giving the speeches. If he had wanted to speak about a topic that some appointee had rejected all he had to do was speak about it anyway. Sure, he might have been fired, but what could he have been afraid of? There are plenty of people who share Dr. Carmona's opinions on matters of stem cells, emergency contraception, sex education, prison, and mental and global health issues. If he had spoken about them, he would do so (presumably) with science and facts on his side. Sure he might have lost his job, but it would be on his own terms and the president would have to either refute his statements or admit to canning him for political reasons. In either case, no staffer has any say over the situation.
This whole story reeks of politics, cover-ups, and black mail. When a presidential appointee gets vetoed against his will by a staffer something doesn't add up.
I disagree. I've had plenty of jobs where I didn't agree with management's policies. Some of them I even did things that were distasteful to me, such as pressuring customers for profitable add-ons or giving the partially bogus company response to a valid complaint. Depending on how much I needed the job and how good the job was, I've done things that were unquestionably wrong. It was easier to live with since it wasn't my decision, since my supervisor was forcing my hand, since the alternative was unemployment.
I don't do these things anymore, but there's no certainty that I won't have to again. If the tech sector collapses again and I find myself doing tech support again (Please, no! not a 3rd time!) I may well find myself in that unpleasant situation again. And who knows, if I luck into a situation where I'm making millions I might hesitate to let my scruples ruin an otherwise good thing.
What I'm saying is this: Here is a man in the most high-profile position possible in his line of work. He can make a difference within the boundaries set for him. If he stands up for his beliefs, the administration will simply replace him with a less competent and more pliable subject. How does that help the public? And it sure hurts the individual. I don't think anyone can judge his actions unless they've been in a similar situation and done the "right thing," besides the fact that I don't think the ethical choice is clear.
Sometimes you can do more good as a reluctant part of the problem than you can as a noble but sidelined martyr.
Man, you really need that seminar!
In the spirit of the Godwin's Law meme, I suggest a new meme for use on slashdot.
The law states: As a discussion addressing the topic of the Bush administration grows in size, the probability of comparing the Clinton administration activities to excuse Bush administration activities grows to one.
Following the traditional use of Godwin's law, I suggest that any mention of the Clinton administration when discussion the Bush administration results in automatic loss of the debate for the person bringing up the Clinton administration.
I also suggest that person have their head examined and study the process of logic. Repeat after me friends: Past mistakes do NOT excuse current mistakes.
As an aside, it's sad that we have to define these types of laws, and that our public education system does not encourage the type of thinking where everyone shares this mentality. Us vs Them groupthink is very damaging to any society.
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but my karma can take 1 troll I suppose. I've researched the topic of global warming, and according to my understanding there is evidence towards the existence of global warming, however there isn't enough evidence to support the cataclysmic model that is put forward by some of the more vocal members of the media and politics such as Al Gore. Of course, there might be some negative repercussions to global warming, but there has been similar increases and decreases in temperature in the past, none of which have jeopardized the existence of man. Sure it can cause some local problems in some areas, but it will also cause other areas of the globe to be more livable. All in all, man can adjust to the effects of global warming without much problems and without needing to throw billions of dollars at faulty solutions. If we believe the model put forward by the proponent of global warming, it is caused by the widespread use of fossil fuels. Now the solutions to global warming, as put forward by those proponents, is to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases by using more efficient lights, having efficient appliances, using hybrid cars. What many people don't seem to understand is that those solutions provide linear reduction of greenhouse gases. Let's say that everyone on the globe produces half the greenhouse emissions they currently produce, then current greenhouse = previous greenhouse emission * 0.5 . Meanwhile, world population tends to grow in an exponential fashion. If I remember correctly, population growth is modeled as ae^bt or something like that. So, reducing the greenhouse emissions by a percentage is only offering a short term solution to the problem of global warming and the population growth will eventually mean the increase in total greenhouse emissions. The real problem to global warming then is to reduce or control world population growth. You can do that by discouraging people to have children through various programs.
There should be a "-1:Groupthink"
Back in what we all tend to think of as the dark ages and other periods of ancient history, we had people suppressing science for religious reasons... but back then religion and politics were mostly the same thing anyway. Technically, today they are not the same thing though there are some clear connections being allowed anyway.
It seems that so many important advances in the sciences have been in spite of government and religion instead of because of them. And yet while we HAVE these useful technologies, government and religion are all about using them and abusing them and often thanking "god" for them.
Will we ever have more than tiny revolutions where real "thinking" becomes popular?
Haha. You mean like it's the job of the head of the EPA to advocate for the environment? Or the job of the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service to protect endangered species? Or the job of the US Attorneys to prosecute cases in a fair and nonpartisan manner? Or the job of the director of FEMA to respond to emergencies? (I'm not even going to bother linking to that one.)
I agree with you 100%--in fact, 120--but c'mon! Where was the outrage six years ago? This wolf-in-sheep's-clothes act has been going on since literally day one. It's partly gratifying to see people finally waking, but mostly just depressing and scary. Should things really have to sink this low before we start asking more from our leaders?
I think there is a world market for maybe five personal web logs.
Note well Virginia congressman Tom Davis at the hearing:
I think the main point of the hearings are, "What's the point in having these people if they're political appointees and can't generally say what they want to, anyways?" What is the role of a surgeon-general? He has a few formal duties, but if he/she isn't allowed to do health advocacy, the job is mostly a sinecure. Particularly in the current administration, who'd rather any difficult or complicated health advise be run past Tony Snow, to make sure it all jives with the current presentation of reality.
Also remember that congress had a Office of Technology Assessment, which performed a scientific advisory role for congress, and congress defunded it in 1995.
It seems like the job is faintly ludicrous if the president considers health advocacy to be political discourse. We'd be better off if scientists independently were more vocal and active in politics. So I guess I agree with you, sortof.
Don't blame me, I voted for Baltar.
The problem is not with Americans--you'll note that somewhere in the neighborhood of 78% of them are displeased with George II. The problem, I'm afraid, is a number of traits of the American electoral system.
1) Plurality voting (and stacked plurality voting, even worse) essentially guarantees having only two parties, and that those two parties will actually be very structurally similar to one another. Of necessity, the two parties differ only minorly on a few of their positions, and any third party cannot be adequately served by the electoral system. Third-party candidates in fact act only as spoilers for the major-party candidate who is closer to their positions, and thus there is a strong disincentive for them to even try.
2) Gerrymandering has successfully been used to turn the overwhelming majority of legislative positions into "safe seats". ie, that that party which will win that seat is absolutely certain. This means that the only real election of significance is the primary that will choose the particular member of that party who gets the seat. Given that primaries are voted in only by members of that party, this means that the most extreme and partisan candidates are the ones who have the greatest chance of success.
3) Legislation that passes with 50%+1 of congressional support is exactly as much a law as legislation that passes with 100% support. This, unfortunately, incentivises those two parties being an intentionally divisive as possible. Reaching across the aisle and finding compromises does not strengthen your bill, it only weakens your ability to campaign as an extremist next time around. Legislation is therefore frequently given radioactive riders that make it intentionally diffcult for members of the opposing party to support it. For example, the bill that created the Department of Homeland Security was intentionally saddled with some aggressive union-busting provisions, to discourage Democrat legislators from voting for it; this allowed Republicans to brand Democrats as anti-security, and served their purposes far better than actual bipartisan cooperation would have.
Unfortuately, changing these fairly fundamental structural things about the American electoral and legislative systems would require action by exactly the set of people who have figured out how to profit from the current broken systems. So we're deadlocked.
"If this is true, and it seems pretty likely it is, it's a pretty serious matter in my opinion."
For the love of Pete!
How many times does this story have to repeat itself. The first was the supression of information out of NASA where scientific press releases/papers were altered by political appointees to better reflect the anti-evolution/anti-climate change stance of the present administration.
IF this is true?
Even a former CIA director tells a bleak tale of intelligence being skewed based on presupposition.
IF this is true?
Wake up people.
Another consultant who stuck it out.
"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."
> You can do that by discouraging people to have children through various programs.
Another program that the GOP does its damndest to stop every time they have a little bit of power.
"Why isn't anyone questioning what expertise a surgeon general could have in the field of GLOBAL WARMING?"
Exactly. Which is why we should question why anybody listens to Al Gore on the subject.
Of course they do. Didn't you know conservatives opposed the Americans with Disabilities Act as unfair government meddling with business? Much like any other minority, conservatives would be happier if they were simply swept under the rug and were forced to deal with a world built for the majority.
It's a combination of Social Darwinism from the libertarian side of the party and a desire to see crippled people more dependent on private organizations (i.e. churches) from the religious right side. (Another reason why, as a Christian, I can't stand the religious right.)
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").
Why isn't anyone questioning what expertise a surgeon general could have in the field of GLOBAL WARMING?
Who cares? I've tried explaining lots of different things without ever being an expert in the relevant fields. The point is, the people he was trying to explain something to DIDN'T WANT TO KNOW.
-----
PGP Key ID 0xCB8FF658
Thank you. For the love of the Flying Spaghetti Monstor, thank you.
One should not care who is wrong, just that they were, or are in fact wrong, try to change it, and attempt to not have it repeated in the future. Would it be OK for Bush to eat Jew baby brains if Clinton did too? My fucking goodness are people stupid...in this country...
In France (*ducks!), and in many other countries, they protest if their breakfast was cold and you can bet tomorrow their eggs will be piping hot. In other countries, the politicians actually fear the poeple (as it should be). In the US, they know that a good haircut, some big words and a great sound bite will win 51% approval no matter the agenda. And remember, if they can do it (you mean more power? hell yeah I'll do it!), they will. We are just too damned apathetic and under-educated in the US, and it's sad to watch... many of us are just waiting for it to end with one big toilet flush. Hopefully I'm stuck to the side of the bowl when it's through. But if not... oh well...
As it is right now the vast majority of us in the US live in a vacuum. We come home from our 10 hour work day (with a 30 minute lunch), feed the kids, clean the house, watch 30 minutes of Fox"News" and wake up in the morning and do it all again. This behavior seems absurd in other countries... because it is. People come to the US like poeple play the lottery. You can become really fucking rich here. If you are the greediest, most immoral person you will accomplish that goal without issue here. That's what the US is all about. When they speak of freedom in the US, that's what they mean. As many realize, the US is not the most free country in the world. In fact, there are many that are much more free. New Zealand, the Netherlands, Canada, Switzerland, etc... but it's harder to become super rich on the backs of normal people there. In those countries (actually, in all other industrialized countries), they have things like socialized medicine. OMG! Pinko Commie!!
You get the picture...
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance - it is the illusion of knowledge." - Daniel Boorstin
... I have to ask you Americans: why aren't the majority of you out in the street, protesting? I have no doubts that the majority of you are aware that your administration is blatantly corrupt and out of control. But where are the mass public demonstrations? Are you passively just waiting for the 2008 elections? Don't you realize that the Democrats will be just as blatantly corrupt if they see the electorate as a bunch of push-overs that are more interested in watching Pop Idol than protesting against their government?
Seriously, you guys are smart. You know what the real deal is. Have you simply lost all morale? Or is it something else? Please, I am not trying to start a flame war here (hence my not posting as AC). I would love to hear your stories.
You're implying that the purpose of intercourse is reproduction. One of the characteristic of man (and higher mammals) is that sexual intercourse is also used for recreative purpose, therefore your argument of the anus not having reproductive structures does not by itself prove anal sex "unnatural". The unhealthy part is factually true, std's are transmitted much more easily through anal intercourse that vaginal intercourse.
As for global warming, I think you raise a very valid point questioning the surgeon's general authority on that matter.
\u262D = \u5350
When did the SG become a spokesperson for the president? His job is to advise the president on health issues.
But Feynman was gifted when it came to that sort of thing, the ice water / o-ring demonstration to Congress being another beautiful example.
I think the problem our former Surgeon General ran into was both that he didn't have Feynman's skills and that his audience not only didn't care about the science in question but they were actively seeking ways to discredit it.
"Sacrifice for the good of The State" - The State
Erm.
(And I don't even know what's meant by "unnatural" here--that's not the sort of word that would make sense in a scientific hypothesis. If you mean "occurs in nature"--since when are people not part of nature? Or is it just homosexuals that aren't part of nature? (That'd be circular reasoning if I've ever heard any.) And if by "natural" you mean "occurs in animals other than humans"--lots of other animals have homosexual sex.)
So, yes, the statement that "homosexual intercourse" is "unhealthy and unnatural" suggests someone that puts their personal prejudices ahead of any sort of clear-headed thinking about health.
Good point, anal sex is merely unhealthier.
\u262D = \u5350
Your comment boils down to "even though this controversial issue, trust me". Tell me: Who the hell are you, and why should anyone trust you?
I'll probably be modded troll for this, but . . .You should be. Cite your damn sources next time.
http://outcampaign.org/
This is how oppressive regimes throughout history have managed to prevent revolution; stamping out sparks quickly, before they can light fires.
Americans talk of their right to bear arms - wouldn't right about now be the time to use them?
IMO, the next "threat" will be domestic "terrorists" fighting back against what's happening (a la V for Vendetta).
'Thats they exact same thing a banana wrench monkey.'
...with an inferior product.
Yes, all that construction around the ocean based measuring equipment has to skew the results. Also, all that urban sprawl in the 10's of thousands of ft range is really messing up the measurements of the weather balloons. Did you think that only one set of data is used in these models? Do you understand how modeling works?
Can someone explain to all the fish of the sea that we need them to stop building next to our ocean based equipment? And those damn avian cranes are starting to pop our balloons!
Here in Chicago, our 'official' temperature monitoring station WAS in the downtown area, and then was moved to the airport at a much later point, considerably outside of the urban heat island effect. This now results in the first frost of the year coming considerably earlier than it does in downtown. So, in this case, if its warmer NOW, then there are some serious problems with that theory you put forward that need to be explained.
There is also the slightly awkward fact that this 'argument' is actually PROVING what it claims to be dis-proving. That man-made effects are changing the environment and climate. Where exactly do you think that additional heat from the construction is going?
Thanks for providing a good example of how hard it can be to understand science.
This project has the potential to be meaningful, but it has a long way to go yet. They need a hypothesis, a rigorous way to test it, and repeatable results.
What the surfacestations project has right now is the beginnings of a hypothesis--that local changes have biased the long-term trends that weather stations have recorded. It's not really a strong one yet because they don't have good coverage yet...last time I checked there were like 15 station reports, out of well over a thousand, and that's just the NOAA stations.
Once they have good coverage they'll need to devise a quantitative way to test for bias in the readings. This might involve placing duplicate weather stations nearby but further from the alleged bias factors, and looking for long-term differences in readings. Or it might involve comparative statistical analysis to check the data trends from these terrestial stations with satellite and other terrestrial data sets. The point is, they are going to have to do some testing or comparison involving precise numerical data.
Then their conclusions have to be peer reviewed and published, where they will become public knowledge for other scientists to poke around in, look for flaws, and try to repeat.
Unfortunately you jumped right past all that stuff, straight to a belief that the mere existence of this site somehow provides support for your pet theory. It doesn't.
Build a man a fire, he's warm for one night. Set him on fire, and he's warm for the rest of his life.
Campaign funding is unfortunately a whole different set of problems. The incredible power of advertising is something that the US's architects never considered, so the structure of the government does not deal with it well. And while I'm flattered, I don't think I have any great insight into the solutions to that problem.
The problems I enumerated would be largely addressed by moving to a better voting methodology. Plurality voting does a terrible job of expressing the will of the electorate, and, just like layering lossy compression, stacking multiple plurality votes only gets worse. By the time we've made it through gerrymandering, primaries, general elections, and the electoral college, the outcome bears very little relationship to the general desires of voters.
Two substantially better systems are approval voting (in which you vote yes or no on every candidate, and whomever gets the most yesses wins) or a Borda count (in which you rank candidates in your order of preference, and the candidate with the highest total ranking wins). Both of these allow voters to express their desires much more concretely, including allowing a vote for a third-party candidate to be meaningful and not threaten the success of a still-acceptable and more viable candidate. So everyone really could vote meaningfully for Nader or Perot without taking votes away from Bush or Gore, for example.
I wish I could dig it up, but around 2001 I saw a study in which someone had attempted to reconstruct from polling data what the outcome of the 2000 presidential election would have been if either of these methods had been in place. And the answer was that we would fairly likely have elected John McCain.
Now, I'm not a huge McCain fan. I disagree with him about some significant issues. But I am confident that he would be a much better choice for the job than George W. Bush.
The reason this is interesting is that if you asked a Bush voter for their opinion on this outcome, a lot of them would say something like, "I'm not a huge McCain fan. I disagree with him about some significant issues. But I am confident that he would be a much better choice for the job than Al Gore."
A candidate who is everybody's second choice is a much better electee than a candidate who is 50% of voters' first choice and 50% of voters' over-my-dead-body choice.
Do you honestly believe that America is that evil that we deserve somebody like W?
Well, last time I checked, the US was a democracy. That basically means you brought this on yourself. Of course those that voted for others do not deserve this.
But besides W, I have serious doubts the US qualifies as "great and worthy". In some regards it barely makes it into the 1st world. Overall I would rate it a "very big and a somewhat backwards 1st world country".
My impression is that many US citizens are so obsessed with their nation being "great", that they fail to check what others do. This way they do not know were true world leaders in specific areas are and what they could learn there. Just some keywords: Health system, public transportation, energy consumption and infrastructure, food safety, legal system, education system, banking system, phone system, Internet infrastructure,... . In all these (and a lot more) the US is significantly behind the best.
Just one personal observation: I have had food poisoning 4 times in my life. 3 times in the US, despite having spent only about 2.5% of my lifetime so far there. An there was no ''risky'' behaviour involved at all.
Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
Ah, so you're one of those. Link to an article where mainstream science, or Al Gore for that matter, said global warming would "jeapardize the existence of man." You're creating a classic strawman argument. By pretending that the scientists investigating global warming are all alarmist hand-wavers, you have identified what your "research" consisted of. You read a bunch of conservative talking points saying that "alarmist" scientists think that global warming will wipe out all life, and since it won't, we can't trust them. But that isn't the mainstream scientific position, and anyone who has "researched" this would know that.
Do you also feel qualified to "research" the germ theory and weigh in with your insights? How damned arrogant can you really be? Can I do a bit of reading in my study, ponder a bit, and just expect to wash away plate tectonics, the heliocentric model of the solar system, the germ theory, the atomic theory, or other mainstream scientific theories? No, and only an arrogant ass would think that their opinion, based on a bit of half-assed "research" on conservative blogs, was more informed that the entire damned scientific community. Could you possibly have a higher opinion of yourself?
The difference is that this isn't some joe-job in the private sector.
The Surgeon General is the leading spokesperson on matters of public health in the US. He is also a physician, and has taken an oath that states (in part) "I will respect the hard-won scientific gains of those physicians in whose steps I walk, and gladly share such knowledge as is mine with those who are to follow."
His responsibility is to promote improvement of the health and welfare of the entire nation, not to prop up half-baked policy of the Bush/Cheney/Rove. Use of the post for plain political hackery is a tremendous breach of the public's trust and yet another nauseating example of the corruption at all levels of this administration.
That's because they're too stupid to see the big picture. They can't look beyond "oh, noes! I won't be able to buy so many DVDs! :("
American consumers have got to be the most selfish, greedy, stupid people out there today. They're the reasons we have this government we have today; they'd vote in Hitler as long as they got to buy more stupid shit for themselves.
Let's stop dilly-dallying and just change "-1: Overrated" to "-1: Disagree" or "-1: Doesn't Subscribe to Groupthink".