Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government 'Muzzling' Scientists

Posted by Soulskill on from the information-wants-to-be-free-just-shut-up-for-a-couple-weeks-first dept.

taikedz writes "Fiona Fox, chief executive of the Science Media Center, has claimed that leading scientists independently advising the UK government are being actively prevented from speaking to the public and media, especially in times of crisis when scientific evidence is necessary for a fully open and educated public debate, such as the current badger culling policy, and the past volcanic eruptions and ash fallout and their effects. The Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, whom many of these scientists are advising, denies any such practices."

56 of 83 comments (clear)

  1. Badgers? by zeroryoko1974 · · Score: 5, Funny

    We don't need no stinkin badger's

    1. Re:Badgers? by TWiTfan · · Score: 1

      Look, I'll be the first to admit that when I was young, I was really big into badger culling myself. But, like most people, I eventually grew out of it and realized that badgers are much better left unculled. Having kids will really change your perspective, man.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:Badgers? by Chris+Mattern · · Score: 2

      When badger culling is outlawed, only outlaws will be culling badgers!

    3. Re:Badgers? by GrunthosThePoet · · Score: 1

      We should be culling politicians and not badgers.

    4. Re:Badgers? by Nidi62 · · Score: 2

      What about mushrooms?

      --
      The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
    5. Re:Badgers? by Penguinisto · · Score: 1

      I only wish we had badgers out here to cull. My two dogs at home really need something to hunt besides moles and rabbits...

      --
      Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
    6. Re:Badgers? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      You mean government institutions? I believe that in my country, they're already in charge of it.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    7. Re:Badgers? by bryan1945 · · Score: 1

      The snakes ate them.

      --
      Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
  2. Fear my laugh by Impy+the+Impiuos+Imp · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Requests for interviews with scientists working for the Canadian federal government have frequently been turned down as a consequence of a media protocol introduced in 2008.
    This directive explicitly states that press officers should ensure that the minister is not embarrassed and that the interview is "along approved lines".

    Any time you see "Don't embarrass the minister", read: This is why freedom of speech is enshrined.

    "The dictator fears the laugh more than the assassin's bullet.". -- Robert A. Heinlein

    --
    (-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
    1. Re:Fear my laugh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      We need separation of science and state.

      "The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded. Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "
      Eisenhower speech.

    2. Re:Fear my laugh by Mashiki · · Score: 2

      We need separation of science and state.

      You've already got it, it's called...private enterprise.

      --
      Om, nomnomnom...
    3. Re:Fear my laugh by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Any time you see "Don't embarrass the minister", read: This is why freedom of speech is enshrined.

      Freedom of speech doesn't apply to US government employees any more than it does to UK government employees. For example the muzzling of NASA scientists on the topic of AGW under the Bush administration.

    4. Re:Fear my laugh by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      If the state doesn't fund science then an awful lot of important science simply won't get done. Private enterprise can profit from pharma, so that research will get done. But particle physics for example, not so much.

    5. Re:Fear my laugh by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Freedom of speech exists. However there's no freedome to retain your job once you've pissed off your employer or your employer's primary customer. That's the real problem that is going on. Many of these scientists are work for "arm's length" agencies; that is they're supposed to be free of pressure from the government. However they certainly know that their funding may be at risk if they annoy the government ministers.

      The same problem exists if the government backs out and is replaced by private industry though. As long as there's a funding source that can vanish overnight due to someone's whim this problem will exist.

  3. "muzzling" by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The article refers to muzzling in Canada (which is happening), whereas the summary refers to muzzling in the UK. The article implies that UK public-service scientists are being pressured, but it's not as explicit as here in Canada.

    1. Re:"muzzling" by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Both Canada and the UK governments are conservative (The UK as the major party of a coalition.) It's par for the course for right wing governments to be anti-science. They want their agenda being put to the media, not scientific truth.

  4. david nutt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Nutt would be another example of the UK government not wanting to hear from scientists.

    1. Re:David Nutt by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Based on their findings, Nutt pushed for the classification of illegal drugs based on actual harm, rather than arbitrarily as it still is now.

      This is not a scientific issue, it is a legal and ethical issue. He was thus no longer speaking as a scientific advisor, he was taking a legal/political stance.

      For this heinous crime he was sacked by the then Home Secretary,

      OMG. He became an outspoken advocate against current government policy while being paid by the government to provide scientific input, and he got fired. How awful.

      It seems that all governments are anti-scientific when the science contradicts their ridiculous ideologies, especially when it comes to drug policy.

      Laws should and must include social considerations and not just be a reflection of scientific physical laws. While you may call that "anti-scientific", it really isn't. You may also call firing a scientist who has wandered into public policy "anti-scientific", but really, again, it isn't. "Use of drug X causes Y dollars in damage to society, using the following assumptions and cost analysis basis..." is science. "We should set the criminal level of use of drug X based on cost..." is a statement of a personal opinion.

      "Yes, thank you, agrarian scientist, for the information that one person walking on a field of grass doesn't hurt the grass but may in fact help it. We're still going to make 'Do Not Walk On The Grass' signs legal and enforce them with trespass violations because the owner of the grass has property rights that your science doesn't consider."

      Oooh, oooh, a car analogy just came to mind. "Thank you Dr. Traffic Safety Investigator, we understand that any distraction at all while driving can increase the chances of an accident. Unfortunately, it is politically and socially unacceptable to outlaw the use of the car radio or windshield wipers while the car is in motion, nor will we create a law limiting the driver's and passenger's freedom of speech by prohibiting all discussions during a drive. We may consider a law allowing the use of duct tape on small children in the back seat, however."

    2. Re:David Nutt by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I wrote to my Labour MP about drug policy and the ignorance of scientists and facts in legislature. Here's his (Paul Blomfield) response:

      (My name, but misspelled)

      First of all my most sincere apologies for the amount of time it has taken me to respond to your e-mail of 21 June 2012 on the subject of Evidence Based Policy. I understand why you feel that expert advice should not be disregarded. However, in coming to a view, it is the role of politicians to take into account a whole range of factors. I think that it is right that the Home Secretary is obliged to consult the Advisory Council before laying Orders before Parliament or before making Regulations on drug policy. But to say that she must always agree with their advice is the equivalent to saying that ACMD should make the decision. If we extended this to other areas, for which there would doubtless be a similar case, and left policy decisions entirely to the experts, we would end up with a ‘technocratic’ government. The strength of the current system, although it is not perfect, is that politicians are democratically accountable. So, even though I disagree with Teresa May on many issues, I believe that she ultimately should take the decision.

      Thanks again for getting in touch and sharing your views.

      Best wishes,

      Paul

      It took him three months to respond with that, "democratically accountable" my arse.

    3. Re:David Nutt by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      A technocratic government. That'd be nice. Shame the idea died out, with the amount of data technocrats would have at their disposal these days, it could work really well.

      I wonder why he mentioned it in the sense that it was an unthinkable thing. Other than him not being an MP for the Technocratic Party of course.

    4. Re:David Nutt by BasilBrush · · Score: 2

      The fundamental problem is that drugs policy is one of those areas that's driven by the Murdoch press. No UK politician dare to be seen as soft on drugs any more than soft on other kinds of crime. It would be electorally damaging.

      Tories are if anything more war-on-drugs types, even given the scientific facts. So it's not a Labour thing.

    5. Re:David Nutt by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      A technocratic government. That'd be nice.

      No, it wouldn't. It would result in the same kind of power struggles and partisanship that occurs today, only worse because scientists aren't elected.

      Anyone who has been alive for more than a decade has already seen the back-and-forth that science brings us regarding simple things. Red wine is good for you. Let's pass laws making it legal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is bad for you, let's make it illegal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is good for you in small amounts, let's make it legal to buy a glass at a time.... This study shows ... that study shows ... the other study shows something else. Which do we follow? What law do we enact? That's just one example.

      Then you need to reconcile the concept of human rights and freedom against stark realities of physical law. It's dangerous to skydive. We're banning skydiving. It's dangerous to fly small airplanes. Let's ban small airplanes. It's dangerous to be distracted while driving. Let's ban all distractions. I mean ALL distractions. It's dangerous to drive anywhere, let's ban cars.

      with the amount of data technocrats would have

      Who elects the technocrats? Does anyone with a scientific degree get to create new laws, or only some of them?

      The main problem is that science deals with one part of reality and society deals with a different thing. Science doesn't consider the human side of things (no, I don't mean physiology, I mean social and emotional things), but the law has to. Science doesn't care if I like the taste of red wine, it deals with how it hurts or helps my health. "You must drink red wine because it is good for you" is a bad law from so many standpoints, but it would be "science" in a technocrat society.

      Let's end it with this: if I do a cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty issue, I would probably wind up with the answer that it costs society much less to execute a convicted murderer than it does to keep him in prison for any significant amount of time. (That applies to pretty much any convicted criminal sent to prison. A dollar or two of drugs vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in incarceration costs. Benefits to society: lower population, lower costs for supporting that population, less carbon footprint as relatives and friend don't have to drive to the jail to visit. Wow, a win for the planet!) I would also probably come up with the science to support that once a person has committed a murder he's more likely to murder again. (Yes, the "one off" crimes of passion exist, but there are a lot of people who are complete psycho and sociopaths who will murder more than once, and they bring up the odds.) I could probably manage a scientific study that shows the costs of multiple, unending appeals are the main reason that the death penalty has any added expense, and that the majority of those fail.

      Ergo, science tells us that someone who is convicted of murder no longer gets appeals and is executed at the earliest opportunity. It's a simple cost/benefit study. Science has ruled. But wait, people make mistakes. There are incalculable and often unrepeatable social costs (and thus outside any scientific realm) to the death penalty and we shouldn't do it. Sorry. Science rules.

      And as a final nail in this coffin: the science of eugenics. Technocratic government is nice?

    6. Re:David Nutt by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Anyone who has been alive for more than a decade has already seen the back-and-forth that science brings us regarding simple things. Red wine is good for you. Let's pass laws making it legal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is bad for you, let's make it illegal for anyone to drink red wine. Red wine is good for you in small amounts, let's make it legal to buy a glass at a time.... This study shows ... that study shows ... the other study shows something else. Which do we follow? What law do we enact? That's just one example.

      Right, but it's an example of the popular press interpreting the latest paper, and quoting it either uncritically, or as a "Look at what the mad boffins are saying now" depending on the reporters/papers position or what makes a better story.

      And as democracy stands, it's these second hand layman's views that the public absorbs and politicians pander to. A Technocracy would mean scientists taking a proper scientific view on the range of papers on a topic. And to misquote Rumsfeld: having a rational view on what are the knowns, the unknowns, the known unknowns, and the unknown unknowns.

      Then you need to reconcile the concept of human rights and freedom against stark realities of physical law. It's dangerous to skydive. We're banning skydiving. It's dangerous to fly small airplanes. Let's ban small airplanes. It's dangerous to be distracted while driving. Let's ban all distractions. I mean ALL distractions. It's dangerous to drive anywhere, let's ban cars.

      As opposed to what happened here with David Nutt. He pointed out that the drug Ecstasy was less dangerous than horse-riding. Now to me that undeniable fact makes it unacceptable that ecstasy is illegal whilst horse-riding is legal. Are YOU really suggesting that having policy that is contrary to reality such as this is preferable.

      But more than that, you're confusing Technocracy with Nanny-statism. They are orthogonal. There is nothing about the concept of having things run based on scientific reality that means that people would be forbidden from taking risks.

      Who elects the technocrats?

      I'm more interested in the general concept of scientists running things than the details. It seems to me there are many possible systems for choosing the technocrats. Fundamentally technocracy implies meritocracy, to what extent democracy is or isn't mixed in there is open to question. Personally I'd want to see some expert opinion on that rather than suggest something off the top of my head. ;-)

      Let's end it with this: if I do a cost/benefit analysis of the death penalty issue, I would probably wind up with the answer that it costs society much less to execute a convicted murderer than it does to keep him in prison for any significant amount of time. (That applies to pretty much any convicted criminal sent to prison. A dollar or two of drugs vs. hundreds or thousands of dollars in incarceration costs. Benefits to society: lower population, lower costs for supporting that population, less carbon footprint as relatives and friend don't have to drive to the jail to visit. Wow, a win for the planet!) I would also probably come up with the science to support that once a person has committed a murder he's more likely to murder again. (Yes, the "one off" crimes of passion exist, but there are a lot of people who are complete psycho and sociopaths who will murder more than once, and they bring up the odds.) I could probably manage a scientific study that shows the costs of multiple, unending appeals are the main reason that the death penalty has any added expense, and that the majority of those fail.
      Ergo, science tells us that someone who is convicted of murder no longer gets appeals and is executed at the earliest opportunity. It's a simple cost/benefit study. Science has ruled.

      No, YOU"VE decided that cost/benefit analysis is

  5. Putting PR Men in Charge by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is what happens when you put professional spinmeisters in charge of professional workers: Dysfunction.

    Imagine putting a PR team in charge of the Doctors dealing with an epidemic. A doctor would like to announce quarantine measure, or tell people the full risks, or advise those who are sick, etc. If you had a PR man in charge, the whole epidemic would be treated as a mild flu, no-one would be informed, contagion would spread rapidly and thousands would die. "No matter", says the PR man, "We can spin that too.". But this misses the point.

    If you allow spin and the press office to dictate the running of an organisation, then the organisation effectively will not run at all. No professional can work properly with an unrelated lay person getting in his way 24/7.

    It's time to call PR men what they really are: Political Officers.

    --
    May the Maths Be with you!
    1. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by TWiTfan · · Score: 2

      Most hospitals and public health organizations *do* have public relations people. And they usually oversee any public announcements.

      --
      The cow says "Moo." The dog says "Woof." The Timothy says "Thanks, valued customer. We appreciate your input."
    2. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by Xest · · Score: 1

      It's not really even about PR men but entirely to do with the fact that an absolute minority (I'd wager you could count them on two hands) of Britain's politicians are willing to make policy based on the facts, as opposed to what they think should be the case based on gut instinct/religious leanings/other bias.

      Our politicians just do not have the capacity to comprehend why policy is best made based on evidence and facts as opposed to personal bias.

      It's really not anymore complicated than that. If I was a politician before decided to vote on something or build policy I'd go and and ask the experts in the field for some arguments either way and find out which path made most sense based on the evidence and their advice. I'd want sound reasoning behind any decision. Contrast this to actual politicians and what they do is make the decision and then dig for anyone who will back up that position (usually Rupert Murdoch if you give some favours back) and then criticise/silence any experts or anyone else who points out why you're wrnog.

    3. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      Personal political agendas being contradicted by scientific fact have made a quite few high-profile government folks look very bad. Can't have that.

    4. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by StoneyMahoney · · Score: 1

      Did somebody say something?

    5. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by Hatta · · Score: 2

      It's time to call PR men what they really are: Political Officers.

      I would have gone with worthless lying sacks of shit who do more to hurt society than everyone in prison combined.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by sjames · · Score: 1

      Time to spill some tea.

    7. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Imagine putting a PR team in charge of the Doctors dealing with an epidemic. A doctor would like to announce quarantine measure, or tell people the full risks, or advise those who are sick, etc. If you had a PR man in charge, the whole epidemic would be treated as a mild flu, no-one would be informed, contagion would spread rapidly and thousands would die. "No matter", says the PR man, "We can spin that too.". But this misses the point.

      A theme examined in Ibsen's An Enemy of the People, with regard to the public water supply. Which later inspired the movie Jaws, with it's rather more popcorn friendly "health risk".

    8. Re:Putting PR Men in Charge by terjeber · · Score: 1

      Does it hurt to be as ignorant as you are, or does the ignorance come with some sort of pain-reducing features of its own?

      What is PR.

      Some news articles that would probably not exist without PR professionals:
      http://www.informationweek.com/global-cio/trends/how-linux-foundation-runs-its-virtual-of/240156624
      http://www.eweek.com/servers/ibm-to-support-linux-kvm-virtualization-on-power-systems/
      http://www.h-online.com/open/features/Linux-Mint-15-A-better-Ubuntu-for-the-desktop-1873682.html

      I just randomly picked Linux as a search item in Google News. It could have been anything. Almost everything you read in a publication was "sold" to that publication by a PR professional. Did you think journalists actually spent time researching and finding out stuff on their own? Honestly, if it wasn't sold by a PR agency, you probably never heard about it.

  6. The Department... denies any such practices. by fustakrakich · · Score: 1

    Which, by default, makes that an official confirmation.

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  7. Denies such practices... by gweihir · · Score: 1

    ... and preventively has forbidden the scientists to talk about it for good measure. Who can doubt their sincerity!

    --
    Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    1. Re:Denies such practices... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      and preventively has forbidden the scientists to talk about it for good measure.

      The article says nothing about prevention. It mentions one time when a scientist was asked not to speak to the press again. Ask. The rest of the complaint is that scientists who have signed the Official Secrets Act are hesitant to talk because THEY are afraid they might let something confidential slip out. Their fear, not a prohibition from the government, stops them from talking.

      Two points. Great Britain does not have a 1st Amendment, and even if it did (or has something equivalent) these scientists have waived the rights it would grant by signing an agreement not to talk about certain things.

      As for badgers, everyone knows that British badgers are a source of tuberculosis that is hurting the cows and beef/dairy production of small family farms, and that only addle-brained old women want to put up "badger crossing" signs. Doesn't anyone in England listen to The Archers anymore?

    2. Re:Denies such practices... by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      ...because THEY are afraid they might let something confidential slip out. Their fear, not a prohibition from the government, stops them from talking.

      Fear of what? Sounds to me like fear of the goverment to come knoking to me. It's not asking when it's an implied threat.

      Great Britain does not have a 1st Amendment, and even if it did (or has something equivalent) these scientists have waived the rights it would grant by signing an agreement not to talk about certain things.

      All the more reason scientists and anyone else able to think for themselves should leave such a place. I'm from the US, and i'll be first to admit its a horrible place, its a really terrible goverment, and even we are having issues at the moment with this free speech stuff, but at least its being attempted here.

      As for the second point, you cant really wave your right to the 1st amendment here, not in this sort of context anyway. Being able to do so would render it more or less useless. "you wave your right to your 1st amendment rights by utilizing the given "FREE SPEECH ZONE" of your choice." sort of BS would be allowable then, rendering it useless.

    3. Re:Denies such practices... by gweihir · · Score: 1

      I call award you one "humor challenged" virtual medal! Enjoy!

      --
      Most ACs are not even worth the keystrokes to insult them. Be generically insulted by this and ignored otherwise.
    4. Re:Denies such practices... by Obfuscant · · Score: 1

      Fear of what?

      Fear of exactly what I said. They agreed not to talk about certain things as a condition of getting paid to do what they do and getting access to the information they got access to. They were afraid that while talking about unclassified things they would let classified information that they agreed not to talk about slip out.

      This "government knocking" isn't because they talked to the press, it would be because they talked about things they voluntarily agreed not to talk about.

      As for the second point, you cant really wave your right to the 1st amendment here,

      Yes, you can. It's easy. Go to work for a government contractor that deals with classified information and see if you aren't expected to waive your first amendment rights, at least with respect to the classified information you have access to. Or, join the military. There's lots of things you can't say under the UCMJ that someone not subject to those regulations can say freely.

      Being able to do so would render it more or less useless.

      Nonsense. If you want to keep your first amendment rights, don't waive them. Very simple.

      "you wave your right to your 1st amendment rights by utilizing the given "FREE SPEECH ZONE" of your choice."

      If you sign such a contract, then you have, indeed, waived your rights. Since such contracts are figments of the imagination, then your argument is similarly a figment. The problem with your figment is that it involves information solely created by the speaker, which has not been subject to NDA or other agreements. Should someone go to a free speech zone (whatever that is) and start spouting nuclear secrets, he would not be prosecuted for doing so in a free speech zone against some fictional appropriate usage agreement, he's be prosecuted for breaking the agreement that got him access to those secrets in the first place. If an active-duty military person used a "free speech zone" to make statements that violate the UCMJ, he'd be prosecuted under the UCMJ -- which contains no mention of "free speech zones." The "free speech zone" is irrelevant.

  8. David Nutt by gallondr00nk · · Score: 4, Interesting

    The article fails to mention the treatment given to David Nutt by the last Labour government in 2009. At the time, he worked on the Advisory Council on the Misuse Of Drugs, which was meant to be independent of government. Based on their findings, Nutt pushed for the classification of illegal drugs based on actual harm, rather than arbitrarily as it still is now. The ACMD also published about the relative harmlessness of ecstasy and cannabis.

    For this heinous crime he was sacked by the then Home Secretary, who said "he was asked to go because he cannot be both a government adviser and a campaigner against government policy."

    Not long later, Cannabis was back to being a class B drug after only a few years at class C.

    It seems that all governments are anti-scientific when the science contradicts their ridiculous ideologies, especially when it comes to drug policy.

    An an aside, I remember the Prime Minister at the time, Gordon Brown, went on a morning talk show and said, with a straight face, that some strains of cannabis killed people.

  9. Badger by azav · · Score: 1

    The other other other white meat.

    Not just for breakfast anymore.

    I know this to be true because a UK scientist told me so.

    --
    - Zav - Imagine a Beowulf cluster of insensitive clods...
  10. Canuckistan/Britannia by CanadianSchism · · Score: 1

    Well, now we know where Stephen Harper got it from...

  11. I think the badgers find it a crisis. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Of course, when they came for the badgers, you kept quiet because you were not a badger.

    Did you know that innoculation would be cheaper than culling badgers? Mostly because the vector infecting cattle isn't badgers, it's unsanitary farming. But fixing that costs the farmers whilst culling badgers gives them something to shoot at now they're not allowed to shoot pikeys.

  12. Welcome to Canada by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Seriously, this trend towards scientists is appalling.

    And I've read the US government wants more direct CONGRESSIONAL oversight of research grants -in other words, look forward to more topical/pseudoscience research funding at the expense of science that NEEDS to be done that there's no profit in.

  13. This is appalling! by kencurry · · Score: 1

    We condemn this practice in the most vigorous way.

    Sincerely,
    The Roman Catholic Church

    --
    sigs are for losers (except to point out that sigs are for losers)
  14. Slashdot, meet Living Marxism. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

    Nice to see the slashbots sucking up the RCP line.

    The Science Media Centre's stated role is to get science into the public domain through the media when controversial topics hit the headlines.

    Tee hee.

    --
    Watch this Heartland Institute video
    1. Re:Slashdot, meet Living Marxism. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Quite an amusing comment considering the sig promoting the Heartland Anti-science Institute.

    2. Re:Slashdot, meet Living Marxism. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      If you follow the link you'll find that Scott Denning uses the platform Heartland gives him to demolish their AGW denier position.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    3. Re:Slashdot, meet Living Marxism. by BasilBrush · · Score: 1

      Ah right, yes I remember following it up before now. Right winger telling the anti-science brigade it was stupid to deny AGW because that would mean that the right wouldn't have any say in what's to be done about AGW.

    4. Re:Slashdot, meet Living Marxism. by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      Getting them to admit there is a problem is the first part of the battle.

      Afterwards we can argue about how to fix it.

      And its such a fucking great put down of the denier idiots.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
  15. I never knew! by stenvar · · Score: 1

    I never knew that there was a badger crisis in the UK. I mean, here people have been worried about hurricanes, flooding, earthquakes, and the occasional terrorist attack, but WILL SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE BADGERS?

  16. Re:Fiona Fox? by RabidReindeer · · Score: 1

    I've grown wary of anything Fox says...

    Not fox. Badger.

  17. The UK should only muzzle the ones... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    with a proven history of biting children. Quite annoying, that bunch.

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  18. Re:UK have banned Snowden too by tibman · · Score: 1

    Why would the UK fear the US Military? The military isn't telling scare stories.. they tell war stories to their buddies over a beer. The UK could be afraid of the US's civilian organizations though? The Congress and President are in charge of the US Military. I mean, who listens to soldiers? nobody. People listen to politicians and media figure heads. Only rarely does a soldier make public speeches and even then they are probably placed into that position by an external force.

    --
    http://soylentnews.org/~tibman
  19. no surprise here by joseph90 · · Score: 1

    The British minister of Environment does not believe in global warming. I heard him say on the radio recently that the artic melted millions of years in the past so it basically does not matter if it does so again in the future(?). They seem to be very anti-science - it interfers with their belief sytem (bought and paid for by big business I suspect).

    J.

  20. Re:The Great Purge has begun! by webmistressrachel · · Score: 1

    Hang on a minute, I just noticed - it wasn't posted AC! And I posted the comment without reading properly...

    --
    This tagline was transcoded to result in at least one smirk. If you experience failure to smirk, please consult your Gen
  21. Climate Science by barv · · Score: 1

    Hmm. Keywords are: "Department of Environment" and "Volcanic Ash".

    Looks to me as though the climate alarmists have had a hand in this muzzling of scientists.

    Even trying to get a grant for genuine research without stating an expected alarmist outcome is nearly impossible.

    Watch the alarmists mod this down to -infinity.