State Employees Say Rules Prevent Open "Climate Change" Discussion In Florida

An anonymous reader writes "The Florida Center for Investigative Reporting has an article in the Miami Herald about there being certain words state employees have been ordered to avoid: "We were told not to use the terms 'climate change', 'global warming', or 'sustainability'," said Christopher Byrd, an attorney with the DEP's Office of General Counsel in Tallahassee from 2008 to 2013. "That message was communicated to me and my colleagues by our superiors in the Office of General Counsel."

Comments

i'th Post

[mrsquid0]

Grow up Florida.

Re:i'th Post

[MightyMartian]

Yes, I know. I always get tuttes about quantum superposition at work, ands don't get me started on the missives banning plate tectonics.

Re:i'th Post

[William Baric]

It's politics who's trying to use science (or far more frequently trying to deny science), not the other way around.

Here's science : our climate is changing and that change is mainly (and probably exclusively) the result of human activities. What politicians or anyone with a political agenda do with that scientific knowledge has nothing to do with science.

Re:i'th Post

[Barsteward]

Possibly linked to the utilities opposition to solar in Florida seeing how the fossil industry seems to be linked very closely to the politicians- here's a comment from them "The utilities have said that solar is not as effective in Florida because the state’s cloud cover makes solar panels inefficient." http://www.tampabay.com/news/b...

Re:i'th Post

[Aereus]

The irony in this statement is so palpable, one could cut it with a knife: Florida, the Sunshine State, is a poor choice for solar due to "cloud cover" ...

Re:i'th Post

[MillionthMonkey]

Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it.

Incorrect, not shocking. Evolution doesn't become any more or less true if it becomes a political issue in churches. The laws of physics don't change if you're a wealthy industry that can afford to fight back politically against physicists. Your posts in this entire thread (fuck, on this entire site, for years) have been perfused with the idea that scientific phenomena can change if you politically attack them. You can maybe change what scientists examine and the course of scientific discovery, but that's not the same thing. And if you're going to suggest that's what happening here, because we haven't looked hard enough at the sun or something, you're wrong. Industry in this case has spent a lot of money funding scientific research into non-anthropomorphic causes of climate change, and have only managed to produce bullshit.

this is just dumb

[ganjadude]

and I am not one who buys into the doom and gloom scenarios that the global warming crowd would like us to, but restricting people from learning about it does nothing.

even if I am wrong, i would much rather an open debate over this.

Re:this is just dumb

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you don't buy the doom and gloom scenarios, of all places to be worried about *mild* climate change scenarios, Florida is it.

Hilarious

[Ol Olsoc]

So we're now at the stage of "banning it"?

Best way for the denialists to win. Make it illegal. Beats hell out of the cherry picking. Now if we can just get rid of science classes and replace them with bible studies.

Re:Hilarious

[jc42]

We ban so many things these days. Try discussing the idea that racial differences go beyond the cosmetic and see how long you last at your job.

That might depend partly on your job. In medical circles, it's fairly well understood that some medical conditions affect certain groups of people more than others. If a doctor were to ignore, say, symptoms of sickle-cell disease in black people on the ground that it's "racist", that could easily be grounds for a malpractice charge, since most of its victims have central-African ancestors. Haemophilia primarily affects people with European royalty in their ancestry. Tay-Sachs disease mostly affects people with a Jewish backtround. And so on. If a medical corporation were to prevent their employees from discussing diseases that have a genetic component, we should hope that the employees publicise the problem and get it overturned.

Of course, a lot of medical organizations do have a religious component, and it wouldn't be too surprising to find that management wants such things classified as "God's will". But if fact that would be terrible medical practice, and should be brought out in the open if it's happening.

In the opposite direction, when young I was one of the few kids in my environment who seemed to be immune to poison ivy, a common problem weed in North America. Eventually I learned the reason: Sensitivity to its toxin is primarily a "white person" problem, because Europe is the only part of the world with no native plants that contain the toxin. Although I look totally European, I'm partly Ojibwa, and I apparently inherited the resistance from my father's father's mother. I'm not complaining, of course, but I would be a little bothered if this "racial" sensitivity were a forbidden topic of discussion in medical circles. I've had friends with very serious reactions to the toxin, and suppressing information about the racial nature of the sensitivity wouldn't have any public health benefits. (And knowing that some people are permanently immune to it is helpful if you'd like to eradicate the plant in an area frequented by white people. ;-)

There are similar problems with decorative plants like poison sumac and Brazilian pepper, which contain the same toxin, and are widely grown as decorative shrubs or trees in South America and Japan, where most people are immune to the toxin. Again, mentioning the racial differences in sensitivity can aid in diagnosing and preventing problems; it can also be useful information if you're looking for people to remove the plants from an area. Florida has a serious problem with an infestation of Brazilian pepper, and (white) people trying to remove - or worse, burn - the plants have had major medical problems as a result. Floridians would be especially dumb to prevent discussion of the genetic component to this sensitivity.

It is almost like

[Ice Station Zebra]

They want to be submerged under 20m of water.

Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet

[CaptainLard]

You'd think that to address erosion caused by over development, perhaps florida might still want to consider "sustainability" (apparently also banned) even if all those other problems are of no concern to a flat coastal state.

Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this?

[readin]

I won't defend it by saying it is a good idea. But I will point out that it isn't unique and that companies and government quite often ban discussion of certain topics and use of certain words while on the job. Sometimes it even extends to what you can say or even which political causes you can donate to while off the job. It's not like Brenden Eich never received any pressure to step down.