Slashdot Mirror
EPA Quashed Report Skeptical of Global Warming
theodp writes "CNET reports that less than two weeks before the EPA formally submitted its pro-carbon dioxide regulation recommendation to the White House, an EPA center director quashed a 98-page report that warned against making hasty 'decisions based on a scientific hypothesis that does not appear to explain most of the available data.' In an e-mail message (pdf) to a staff researcher on March 17, the EPA official wrote: 'The administrator and the administration has decided to move forward...and your comments do not help the legal or policy case for this decision.' The employee was also ordered not to 'have any direct communication' with anyone outside his small group at EPA on the topic of climate change, and was informed his report would not be shared with the agency group working on the topic. In a statement, the EPA took aim at the credentials of the report's author, Alan Carlin (BS Physics-Caltech, PhD Econ-MIT), describing him as 'not a scientist.' BTW, the official who chastised Carlin also found himself caught up in a 2005 brouhaha over mercury emissions after top EPA officials ordered the findings of a Harvard University study stripped from public records."
it's a Pig... bear... man?
As for marriage, why does 3-5% of the population get to decide for the other 96% what a marriage is?
That 96% used government to make "marriage" a special legal status. The instant they did that, they lost the right to discriminate.
For instance, the government could just give every employee a free "dependent" to cover with their health benefits. Instead, they only cover a "spouse".
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.
Really? Then why doesn't this principle cover brother-sister marriage or polygamy or a father marrying his adult daughter? Why is discrimination OK in those instances, but not in others?
Indeed. Not an argument I disagree with, incidentally. But the slippery slope was started by the government granting a special status. My proposed solution is to pull back the special status as opposed to trying to shoehorn more groups in.
To be fair, though, there are no reproductive issues involved in gay marriages of the sort that would appear in incest. An objection to polygamy is harder to defend. I think most opponents point to a history of abuse in polygamous groups.
Or are you just making up a principle to fit your argument, only to discard the exact same principle when it becomes inconvenient?
I don't think I'm doing that... if I am please point it out because that sounds hypocritical.
A special government privilege is not a civil liberty any more than a farm subsidy is a civil liberty.
There is a difference between getting a special privilege based on a choice in occupation vs. getting one based on some physical trait you have. I'd be against granting special privileges for tall people, or black people, or people with blue eyes. Granting a special privilege to me because I have the utterly common human tendency to pair up with a member of the opposite sex is rather ridiculous, frankly.
W..w..W - Willy Waterloo washes Warren Wiggins who is washing Waldo Woo.