Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

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

Posted by timothy on from the but-it's-the-sunshine-state dept.

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."

251 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. i'th Post by mrsquid0 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Grow up Florida.

    --
    Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
    1. Re:i'th Post by knightghost · · Score: 4, Funny

      Grow up Florida.

      Perhaps the problem is the opposite - so many retired in that state.

    2. Re:i'th Post by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re: i'th Post by phaserbanks · · Score: 2

      Please tell us you're being brilliantly sarcastic.

    4. Re:i'th Post by ckatko · · Score: 1

      Plenty of old people act like petty children.

    5. Re:i'th Post by Dunbal · · Score: 1

      Some religions have rules about drawing certain prophets too.

      --
      Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
    6. Re:i'th Post by Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Odd that science is considered politics though.

    7. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Flamebait

      Its not odd at all considering scientists participate in political activism (james hansen) and politicians push the science in question to further their own goals (al gore among others).

      In fact, in 1988 i think it was, political operatives scheduled the introduction of global to the US congress on the historically hottest day of the year then cut the AC for congress in a poitical move of theatrics when scientist started alarming lawmakers of the impending doom that is the warming of the earth.

      No, not odd at all considering.

    8. Re:i'th Post by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      So because a few scientists participate in political activism, science should be considered political?

      If I follow your "logic", I guess if a plumber somewhere is advocating for a political party, it does mean plumbing should be considered political and government employees should be forbidden to use words like "faucet". Is that what you mean?

    9. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Wow.. your brain simply does not work like it should does it?

      Yes, when people make political issues of science issues, that science often becomes political. I know- shocking isn't it. But it is no different than anything else that people make political issues.

    10. Re: i'th Post by readin · · Score: 1

      I wish I were. But the fact is once you start working for other people they get to tell you what you're allowed to say on the job if you want to keep working for them, and sometimes restrictions are made that aren't good for society at large.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    11. Re:i'th Post by rtb61 · · Score: 1

      Logically, I would have though it would be unsustainable to bar the word sustainable but they ideological asshats motivated by nothing but greed always do unsustainable seek to sustain the unsustainable, things like infinite wealth and infinite resources and infinite greed, well, that last one is true, greed is infinite but it really is unsustainable. No wonder they want to bar the word sustainable. As for science being political, no, science is science, what people choose to do with the science or how the choose to ignore science is political, not the science itself. I can think of only one issue when science is political and that is a grants time when funding of new science is put under review.

      It's not something like say policing where it can be political distorted into law enforcement and what should be an exemplary citizens service instead becomes a guard dog service putting the bite on the poorest citizens least able to legally defend themselves. So policing as a political lie becomes law enforcement, a abusive low IQ citizens as guard dogs service that attacks vulnerable citizens rather than protecting them and where it's members become steroid junkies who sexually get off on the abuse of power (the lowest of the low, people who betray their whole society). The same can not be said of science, science is facts to the best of peoples ability to replicate that science, to prove the validity of theories and to test out new hypothesis's, so that new theories are created and old one's revised.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    12. Re:i'th Post by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Entirely reasonable if your job is public housing.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    13. Re:i'th Post by sjames · · Score: 1

      The problem is that for the most part others will be paying. And plenty of people will be profiting from deliberately making those 'mistakes'.

    14. Re:i'th Post by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      No, my brain is working just find. Science has nothing to do with politics. If you believe otherwise, you're just an imbecile.

    15. Re:i'th Post by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      state employees are supposed to make up reports on if the weather change etc is happening and how much and to ponder if their state budget is sustainable or not.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    16. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If you really think science has nothing to do with politics then quit injecting it into politics.

    17. Re:i'th Post by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Its not odd at all considering scientists participate in political activism (james hansen)

      Was Frances Kelsey a "political activist", too? Or was she simply trying to do her job diligently?

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:i'th Post by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Build that housing on a fault line! All geology is permanent and local!

    19. Re:i'th Post by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Not the Koch brothers, though. And one wishes Walker was banned from pushing his mouth-breather political views on us.

    20. Re: i'th Post by blue+trane · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why public servants work for the public, and why the government should not be run like a corporation. Vote those Florida bums out.

    21. Re:i'th Post by blue+trane · · Score: 4, Interesting

      In Bangladesh, the coastline is receding with no bailouts, and people move to cities which have no infrastructure. The humane solution is precisely more creation of public money, and education. Your market solution creates a lot of unnecessary misery, because ideology.

    22. Re:i'th Post by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 5, Informative

      Grow up Florida.

      Grow up Florida.

      It's not really a Florida thing, but a Republican thing. From TFA:

      This unwritten policy went into effect after Gov. Rick Scott took office in 2011 and appointed Herschel Vinyard Jr. as the DEP’s director, according to former DEP employees.

      Be prepared for this sort of thing from other Republican states because apparently, according to their ostrich-like logic, not talking about something means it isn't happening and can't/won't happen. (Though, in Florida, sticking your head in the sand might mean you might drown from the increasingly rising tides.)

      Of course, Rick Scott and many other Republicans have otherwise simply side-stepped these kind of issues by declaring: I am not a scientist.

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    23. Re:i'th Post by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Quantum superposition renders it harmless.

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    24. Re:i'th Post by William+Baric · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    25. Re:i'th Post by Barsteward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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...

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    26. Re:i'th Post by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      stating verifiable facts is not politics, its more anti-politics as it undermines the politicians fabrications

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    27. Re:i'th Post by Aereus · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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" ...

    28. Re:i'th Post by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    29. Re:i'th Post by Chrisq · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Grow up Florida.

      Absolutely. This fear of words is almost down to the Muslim level, though I expect the punishment for saying them is limited to dismissal rather than stoning

    30. Re:i'th Post by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      Be prepared for this sort of thing from other Republican states because apparently, according to their ostrich-like logic, not talking about something means it isn't happening and can't/won't happen. (Though, in Florida, sticking your head in the sand might mean you might drown from the increasingly rising tides.)

      It's all a secret democratic plot to drown all those old people. Death panels! Death panels!!@#!@

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    31. Re:i'th Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      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" ...

      It isn't irony. It was marketing. The cloud cover is a given, but the state is a greenhouse for about 9 months a year and the unclouded sun can be intense due to its sub-tropical location.

      In fact, the cloud cover is because Florida is a Sunshine State. It's a narrow strip of land surrounded on 3 sides by ocean and you cannot get more than about 100 miles away from ocean anywhere in the state. The sun boiling down on all that water forms clouds and they then move over land, dumping torrential rains almost daily in the extended summer season. Which is about the only way the place was livable prior to air conditioning - which was more or less invented in the state. The rains drop the temperatures from muggy mid-90s down to an endurable 75 or so for a brief blessed while.

      Scott, on the other hand is a jerk.

      I doubt that these anti-solar statements are a matter of the fossil fuel industry having a death-grip on the state's utilities. Florida's utilities operate on a diverse mix of fossil and nuclear plants and some of the major fossil plants are fuel-of-convenience capable (coal or oil).

    32. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Politics is seldom about right and wrong or correct and incorect. Of course people think that it is but its just an opinion from their perspective. Of course the science or scientist of global warming are pushing the political solutions of using less and raising taxes to accomplish that knowing that alternatives just are not there with the idea that they get more money in the end. Of course that is political just as threatening to yank professionall credentials if a weather reporter says some storm is not caused by global warming is political.

      You may not like it but the so called science of global warming is political on many levels.

    33. Re:i'th Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Only one of them will be ok with killing you for it though.

    34. Re:i'th Post by dave420 · · Score: 1, Troll

      We might not die from it, but a lot of horrible things can happen without everyone dying. It would be scary if local climates suitable for agriculture move to areas with poor soil, no infrastructure, and no history of farming. It will also suck should pests start to move closer to people and unprepared-crops, spreading disease and lowering yields in the process. Saying we shouldn't consider scary things scary because everyone won't die is rather, well, strange, to say the least.

    35. Re:i'th Post by dave420 · · Score: 2

      The climate scientists have had a very good record. The claims of inaccuracies are frequently overblown by people who simply disagree with the outcomes, not the methodology involved. The "science has become politicized!" cry is just complaining that science has shown various people, industries, and their buddies being dicks to everyone else, and caught them out. Someone shouldn't have to spell this out to you.

    36. Re:i'th Post by NickFortune · · Score: 2, Funny

      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

      Do you ever think that maybe, just maybe, we're not trying hard enough?

      I say we form a commitment, here and now, to vote the Law of Gravity out of office at the next election and replace it with something more in tune with the 21st Century. We'll see how long it takes to get flying cars and Mars colonies once we have a law of gravity that works with us rather than against us.

      Once we've done that, I expect we'll find the First Law or Thermodynamics will suddenly be willing to compromise its principles a little. And as for General Relativity, don't get me started!

      --
      Don't let THEM immanentize the Eschaton!
    37. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What would make you think that? If anything from what i can gather from quickly looking at the wkipedia entry is that she could have been a political pawn but that doesn't seem to be the case..

      Are you suggesting that she used theatrics and went to congress to push a specific agenda or that she not only helped organize but participated in political protests and even got arrested for violating laws in the process? Are you suggesting that portions of the science she presented were shown to be incorectly exagerating the claims? Just what are you suggesting?

    38. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If all that was stated was verifyable facts, we wouldn't be talking about this right now. They are stating solutions that are not verifyable but require specific political action which moves it into politics.

    39. Re:i'th Post by tbannist · · Score: 3, Informative

      In fact, the evidence points to the opposite.

      No, it doesn't. The mainstream predictions are actually doing ok. The simple fact is that you do not understand climate science and thus you assume the experts know nothing about it either.

      --
      Fanatically anti-fanatical
    40. Re:i'th Post by Capt+James+McCarthy · · Score: 1

      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.

      Don't think so small. Many folks have agendas. Schools, politicians, scientists, news shows, etc. And said folks will collaborate to ensure continuation of their agenda. Here's a clue......watch where the money flows. (this qualifies for whatever side of the fence you are on).

      See how you even try to lead the reader to give credibility to your view? First you say for fact that your statement is science, but give no source. You then lead the reader to your hypothesis that it's all humans that are the exclusive cause for the climate to change. This is subjective science. And that's the problem and gives the ability on both sides to massage the data to suit their needs.

      Frankly when it comes to such divisive topics, I always think that the truth is more in the middle of the data floating around.

      --
      There are no loopholes. It's either legal or it's not.
    41. Re:i'th Post by Mariner28 · · Score: 1

      Politicians/Marketing twist everything for their own use.

      The problem with scientists and engineers is that they don't understand economics or sociology.

      You obviously aren't an engineer by training. Engineering education harps very heavily on the economics aspect of every engineering project. If anything, engineers are constrained by their code of ethics, whereas politicians and marketers are not.

      --
      "A little misunderstanding? Galileo and the Pope had a little misunderstanding."
    42. Re:i'th Post by houghi · · Score: 1

      Or: Pi does not become 3 if a political law says so. Gravity does not vannish if the parties say so.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    43. Re:i'th Post by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      What would make you think that?

      Well, for example:

      Kelsey helped shape and enforce amendments to FDA drug regulation laws to institutionalize protection of the patient in drug investigations.

      What, legislative involvement? Sounds like political activism to me! Not something your ordinary scientist or civil servant does in his free time. But I'm not sure that "political activism" is a better label than "a concerned scientist's conscience", just like in Hansen's case.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    44. Re:i'th Post by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 2

      Solar works effectively every day of the year in Scotland, which is a lot cloudier and a lot further north than Florida. It's simply inconceivable that it doesn't work a whole lot better in Florida.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    45. Re:i'th Post by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1, Troll

      Are we all going to die from it? No, so quit making it seem scary.

      The overwhelming majority of our grandchildren and great-grandchildren are going to die - not directly of global warming, but of the war, pestilence, famine and general destruction which will ensue when coastal cities flood, the area of agricultural land (much of which, globally, is also low lying) reduces, and the temperate bands move towards the poles.

      Not everyone will die, no. And probably the big die-off won't happen in the lifetime of anyone now alive. But if we don't halt global warming soon, the population of the Earth is going to fall very sharply, probably by an order of magnitude.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    46. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      If helped shape means employed political theatrics, exageration, violstion of lsws, then yes i would say political activism. Are you honestly trying to ignore the crap hansen participated in the demote jis acts to "concern"?

    47. Re:i'th Post by Simon+Brooke · · Score: 1

      It actually doesn't matter whether it's man made or not. If our cities and our farmland are going to be flooded and rendered unusable, we have to respond. Climate change could be 100% down to aliens from the Planet Bolg, and we'd still have to take action. Pretending it isn't happening, or claiming it's not our fault, is not adult behaviour.

      --
      I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
    48. Re:i'th Post by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Solar death panels.

    49. Re:i'th Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      These days; didn't usta be like that that tho, the Xstians have really got up great gusto in killing each other and not too long ago, either.

    50. Re: i'th Post by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Fortunately, the Republicans have thought about that as well. Other banned words include: 'gerrymandered districts' and 'rigged' in any sentence containing the words 'elections' or 'voting machines'.

    51. Re:i'th Post by William+Baric · · Score: 1

      From a science point of view, climate change is not a divisive subject at all. It's only people who don't know what they are talking about who are divided in whether they accept science or not.

      When you ask for my "source", you're just dishonest and playing games. You know full well those sources. All your argument is only rhetoric. Worse, it's teenage level rhetoric. Sorry, but I find teenage level discourse a bit boring.

    52. Re:i'th Post by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      So. what you're saying is that, if a group of politicians decide they want to suppress government discussion of a scientific topic, they should just start talking about it and making it into a political issue?

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    53. Re:i'th Post by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Islam interprets this commandment as banning images of any living form

      Certain sects of Islam does. The Saudis have spent billions of dollars of oil money to promote their view as being the only acceptable one throughout the world.

    54. Re:i'th Post by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      I don't think the science itself is. I do think that the science is being abused by profiteers in both directions (both supporting anthropogenic cause, and denying it)

      I do not, however, think that it's healthy to continue to deny the science just because you don't like what one side of the profiteers are lobbying for us to do about it. Instead, lobby for saner solutions. Putting one's head in the sand and screaming that it isn't happening is just lunacy. You're presenting no real alternative to the other side, and they're going to get their way, and it's going to be your fault.

    55. Re:i'th Post by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      Once the law says so, and the schools must teach that it is so, it's only a matter of time before it is effectively 3. Our scientific knowledge and progress is in fact bounded by our laws, even if the physical laws themselves are not.

    56. Re:i'th Post by DamnOregonian · · Score: 1

      For now.

    57. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      Who's not presenting a real alternative to the other side? Let it happen and deal with it when it happens which will be over a span of several hundred years is a real alternative. It will be the 1%ers who primarily lose out.

      Of course I have always been under the impression that if global warming really and truly was a dire needs problem that instead of devising ways to tax the populace and make crap so expensive they cannot afford it, instead of creating hardships in order to exert control over the populaces, they would get teams of scientists from all over the world together working on capture systems, ways to make fossil fuels cleaner, alternative energy ideas and solutions, and more efficient uses of energy as we use it now. Then as solutions become viable, realistic, and useable, we release the information and at certain mile stones, mandate acceptance of higher standard when they become economically acceptable.

      Instead, it seems like taxing energy, causing production to move offshore, and expressing control over the masses- making them get by with less, in the hopes that someone will some day invest the money to achieve that.

      But this has little to do with

    58. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      What a joke. Your first link is fear mongering, the second link says if we adjust for the incorrectness of previous models we can find the correctness of the present. It fails to mention that the rate of temp rise within the last 15 or more years is within the bound of statistical error anyways. Your last two links add nothing of value and your entire premise that I interpreted the evidence is BS in the first place.

      But hey, how else are you going to say something without saying anything at all.

    59. Re:i'th Post by sumdumass · · Score: 1

      The main pusher of climate change, the guy who alarmed congress in 1988 participated in political theater in order to do so. He even admits to it being politicized.

      You are either ignoring reality in order to hang on to some glimpse of legitimation or not paying attention at all.

    60. Re:i'th Post by Stuarticus · · Score: 1

      I know for a fact more of my money goes to power and fuel companies than does to university research. So what does that mean?

      --
      If you think someone isn't free to have a different definition of "freedom" you may be a tyrant.
  2. Not like Florida has to loose by Billly+Gates · · Score: 4, Funny

    Now if it were surrounded by water and flat that would be different

    --
    http://saveie6.com/
    1. Re:Not like Florida has to loose by werdnapk · · Score: 4

      Or lose

    2. Re:Not like Florida has to loose by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      Well, the acidic water will make Florida have a loose consistency.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    3. Re:Not like Florida has to loose by Bathroom+Humor · · Score: 2

      You poke fun of their self-destructive tendencies all you want, but just imagine what this could do for the snorkeling industry!
      And having florida underwater might be seen as a massive improvement to the country as a whole.

  3. this is just dumb by ganjadude · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    1. Re:this is just dumb by Deadstick · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps they're confusing "climate change" with "Beetlejuice". Say it too many times...

    2. Re:this is just dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    3. Re:this is just dumb by rochrist · · Score: 1

      You couldn't possibly be making less sense.

    4. Re:this is just dumb by ganjadude · · Score: 2

      i get the point he is trying to make (i think ) but yeah, it doesnt really follow

      I think what he is trying to say is that the IRS took away the rights of potential mouthpieces from talking about what they want (tea party targeting) but the same people who were ok with silencing the other side are now upset when their side is being silenced.

      it really is a bad analogy, but thats what I took from it

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    5. Re:this is just dumb by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      Now we're in for it!

    6. Re:this is just dumb by sconeu · · Score: 1

      Then why is "Beetlejuice" the title of the film?

      --
      General Relativity: Space-time tells matter where to go; Matter tells space-time what shape to be.
    7. Re:this is just dumb by blue+trane · · Score: 1

      Those restrictions are wrong, too. Is this an "everyone does it so it must be okay" argument? Just because the private sector restricts speech does not mean government should, and we the people should change our government so it is more transparent by voting a lot of market-oriented bums out.

    8. Re:this is just dumb by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      if you read the article, the ban on these words is not a "DEP policy" but "But four former DEP employees from offices around the state say the order was well known and distributed verbally statewide.". Makes it look like someone has an agenda

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    9. Re:this is just dumb by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I have read the article, and you are completely naive about how government functions (really, there is no greater argument for anarchism than working for the government).

      Do you honestly believe there is a specific policy that states I can not discuss marijuana legalization? Do you believe company's mission statements as well?

      Every large bureaucracy, but especially government, has their formal set of rules and their operational rules. My own director regularly breaks the formal rules, and as long as it isn't too egregious, it will most likely stand as the cost and time of fighting it in court are prohibitive. Even public service unions are largely incapable of addressing such concerns, except in the long term, when the people responsible have largely retired.

      And the other side of the coin is most anything said on the job becomes "official". Unless you have authorization, you are operating way beyond your job description and level of expertise. There have already been enough cases where a misinformed public employee misspoke, and it was taken as doctrine. As such, only certain employees are allowed to speak publicly anymore.

    10. Re:this is just dumb by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      i think you are misreading what i was trying to say. i'm not supporting the unofficial "policy", i'm just saying it looks like there is an agenda to remove climate science from the equation without a written mandate.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    11. Re:this is just dumb by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      There never was a debate and never will be, simply because the doomers would lose (and we can't have that, there's too much money involved). The shit's REALLY going to hit the fan when all that sweet government money runs out.

    12. Re:this is just dumb by TapeCutter · · Score: 1

      Legalizing marijuana is a policy decision, they don't stop you from stating the fact that marijuana exits.

      --
      And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
    13. Re:this is just dumb by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      You must be talking about the doomers who say we'll have to go back to living in caves if we respond the cause of AGW.

    14. Re:this is just dumb by budgenator · · Score: 1

      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.

      Nothing is preventing anybody from learning about or debating about AGW, They just pressuring State employees to stop using terminology that is so politically charged as to be meaningless.

      --
      Apocalypse Cancelled, Sorry, No Ticket Refunds
    15. Re:this is just dumb by hondo77 · · Score: 1

      ... there's too much money involved

      Really? How much money we talkin' about and who's getting it?

      --
      I live ze unknown. I love ze unknown. I am ze unknown.
    16. Re:this is just dumb by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Then why is "Beetlejuice" the title of the film?

      Because everyone would assume from the title that it was some German flick they didn't want to see.

      But both Betelgeuse and Beetlejuice work. The former is the origination and the correct spelling, the latter is the phonetic pronunciation hints that the poltergeist conjured to teach... I think it was Winona Ryder's character. Both are used in film.

    17. Re:this is just dumb by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      "Boner" was an old-timey word for prank or caper (embarrassing). Before it got... another slang usage.
      This creates a number of unfortunate... erm, wonderful problems in older comic books:
      Batman, we've got to stop the joker! Those boner crimes are making us look bad! And I'm worried about the boner he's readying for you!" "Let's continue our study of the greatest boners of all time -- and try to guess the Joker's next move."

      It's quite possible that the ... fundamentalist writing staff hadn't advanced beyond the dialogue of the 50s.

  4. Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 4, Insightful
    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.

    --
    The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    1. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

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

      Hey! First rule about climate change...

    2. Re:Hilarious by jc42 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    3. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Races are not real, they are visual trait only groupings, driven in part by history preferences for "normal" looks which homogenised such traits in a regional manner. If you want the real groupings you have to get a lot smaller than "race". There is also a lot of cross population marriage, at least if you measure in millennia. Traits take a long time to become present across a population, at least in human terms. Putting this together positive traits that lead to a simple advantage great enough to become the main version of a trait for any "race", in the brief eye-blink of evolutionary time since the "races" separated, would have already spread to every other race, by intermarriage. In short any race differences that go beyond the cosmetic are sufficiently smeared and sporadic in terms of "race" groupings that "race" is a silly category, or too small to be significant in human terms.

      Sociological and cultural affects on things like intelligence etc. are much larger than most people think. IQ and long term judgement are both affected by prosperity (can you spell vicious-cycle). People also act to fulfil even unfaltering stereotypes of themselves at times, when they have internalised them.

      So why should I think any difference between "races" is caused by genetics?

    4. Re:Hilarious by jd2112 · · Score: 2

      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.

      In the past they have legislated that the Earth is flat, or that it is the center of the solar system, or that pi=3.00. See how well those have worked out?
      If it turns out that global warming is true, what are they going to do? Arrest Mother Nature? Good luck with that. By then most of Florida will be underwater anyway.

      --
      Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
    5. Re:Hilarious by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      What we needed to do was somehow tie climate change to communism or terrorism, then people would be taking action and building climate shelters in the back yard. But with neither of those things then it's just another liberal fantasy.

    6. Re:Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 2

      The laws of physics are not altered by poilitical dogma.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    7. Re:Hilarious by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Individual issues can still be discussed and acted on without using what's becoming mob-mentality branding. When dark-money talk radio is on the same bandwagon it is definitely time to back up a bit and be cautious. Beware of the few percent that might be steering the mob. Even if the cause is good, the solution pushed might not be.

      There are plenty of valid reasons to modify human behavior. But there isn't the need or logical support to stereotype the weather, blaming one thing for everything. We can still make much improved choices, even if we consider that other causes might also be at play. We'll ask better questions and learn more if we keep open minds. Be skeptical of when large piles of cash are thrown around.

      There was an EU carbon-credit scam, mostly involving phantom traders in Denmark, with about $10 billion lost. Next thing you know they'll call nuclear green. New mining practices are like underground fluid-based strip-mining, causing serious contamination of soil and millions of gallons of water. Maybe we should save nuclear for the next ice age anyway?

      Being suspicious of dark money behind fossil fuel goes without saying, but pay attention to how solar projects are funded too. Having someone else own what's on your house may not be the best path to being more independent. There are some big players and some very strange deals. And if someone is pilling on huge grants to fix a drought, take a close look at where the money is going. Maybe the smoke from burning money will seed the clouds? Nobody asked questions when it was a venture capital group that financed a California ballot measure to add some strange tax to fund solar. Solar is great, but it's best if there's no looting and pillaging. One sentence is enough to thrown in a loophole. Find out who actually writes the legislation, and what motivates them. Oh, and read it. Be skeptical!

    8. Re:Hilarious by Billly+Gates · · Score: 1

      By then he will be dead and lived rich through generous campaign contributions and a nice tropical under wave grave to retire in.

      --
      http://saveie6.com/
    9. Re:Hilarious by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's kind of irrelevant what the Florida government or the Koch Brothers Family of Astroturfers think. The insurance industry accepted the reality of AGW quite some time ago, and people living in coastal areas are already viewed as higher risks by actuaries. Surely there must be someone in government of the state of Florida that tracks this and is capable of understanding why it's going on.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    10. Re:Hilarious by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      You're confusing race with genetics. The two are not related in any way. Race is a human construct.

    11. Re:Hilarious by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

      One side of the abortion debate describes foes as "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life."

      That's because the discussion isn't simple. Would you rather there be no abortions, or many?

      Few to none, by the mother's choice? Then you are pro-life and pro-choice. None based on making them illegal in a police state? Then you are anti-choice. Lots and legal? Then you are pro-choice. Lots and illegal? Pro-life.

      If you want to discuss the word games, define "conservative" and "liberal". Oddly, the rest of the world uses neo-liberal to mean US-Libertarian/Conservative. So liberal (neo-liberal at least) is a synonym for conservative. And there are many more worse ones related to politics, not just the issues they argue about.

      --
      Learn to love Alaska
    12. Re:Hilarious by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 5, Interesting

      One side of the abortion debate describes foes as "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life."

      To be honest, that one seems to make sense - these "pro-life" people are more likely to supports wars and the death penalty, so calling them "pro-life" seems kind of disingenuous.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    13. Re:Hilarious by itzly · · Score: 5, Informative

      You're confusing race with genetics. The two are not related in any way. Race is a human construct.

      Race is a human construct based on small differences in genetics.

    14. Re:Hilarious by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      Genetics? more like skin color or language or location or a combination of all three, how many white races are there?

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    15. Re:Hilarious by itzly · · Score: 1

      The amount of skin pigmentation (among many other things) is determined by genetics.

      how many white races are there

      That depends on how closely you look. The differences are small.

    16. Re:Hilarious by jandersen · · Score: 1

      Race is a human construct based on small differences in genetics.

      Make that *very* small differences. Also, it is worth keeping in mind that conecpts like 'race', 'species' etc are abstractions, based on perceived, biological differences; whereas 'species' is mostly based on good, scientific evidence, 'race' is mostly based on biases and prejudices harking back to medieval times or earlier, which is why terms like 'subspecies' or 'phenotype' have replaced it in scientific usage.

      Even 'species' is not entirely without controversy, as one can see from the ongoing dichotomy between those that regard Neanderthals as a separate species vs those that consider them a subspecies of Homo sapiens. The concept of 'race' has no scientific merit today - it is tainted by the way it was used in the not too recent past, when people would even talk about 'the Spanish race' or 'Jewish race' and other nonsense like that, and for that reason it has been replaced with concepts that are not loaded with the same, historical burden of contempt for one's fellow human beings.

    17. Re:Hilarious by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Do you think that there are people who are immune to rising sea level? Gills maybe? Eh?

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    18. Re:Hilarious by Barsteward · · Score: 1

      yes, but races are determined by the general population by more high level choices of skin color or language or location. scientists may work at the genetic level but the racists, xenophobes etc do not.

      --
      "The hands that help are better far than lips that pray." - Robert Ingersoll (1833-1899)
    19. Re:Hilarious by sg_oneill · · Score: 2

      or otherwise avoid risk that might, might arrive in 100 years.

      100 years? Good luck with that shit. Theres not a legitimate scientist working in the field who thinks theres 100 years left to worry about it, particularly when we are observing the effects right now.

      --
      Excuse the Unicode crap in my posts. That's an apostrophe, and slashdot is busted.
    20. Re:Hilarious by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      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.

      Guess what? Natives get poison oak too, and some of them always did. But there was just less poison oak when they were running the show, because they lit controlled burns every year, and it burned out the understory.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    21. Re:Hilarious by tburkhol · · Score: 1

      Genetics? more like skin color or language or location or a combination of all three, how many white races are there?

      Considering that, for a long time, the boundaries established by language and location prevented human interbreeding, those seem like pretty reasonable indicators of genetic drift. That is, the same population trends that allow languages to drift also allow genetic drift. Maybe we'll see that disappear, now that it's so easy to travel, but it's really only been 30 years or so. Skin tone, hair color, and facial structure are just the most obvious external indicators of genetic variation.

    22. Re:Hilarious by Drethon · · Score: 1

      As in race is determined by ignorance and genetics are determined by scientists? While I think there is some validity to this, it is also important that those same scientists limit the application of their knowledge appropriately.

    23. Re:Hilarious by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

      Races are not real, they are visual trait only groupings...

      Very impressive. Self-contradiction in only ten words.

      --
      Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
    24. Re:Hilarious by Eunuchswear · · Score: 1

      There have been "race wars" between two groups indistinguishable by genetics--e.g. Tutsi and Hutus (who started as two political classes but whom the Victorian English categorized as two distinct "races" , which evolved into a series of genocides)

      Yup, the Victorian English from Brussels. Mostly we call them Belgians.

      --
      Watch this Heartland Institute video
    25. Re:Hilarious by jmac_the_man · · Score: 1

      The GWB administration tried to replace "suicide bomber" with "homicide bomber."

      Your larger point is true, but this is false. A media organization tried to change the euphemism, not the actual government. The government's position was and is "Pretty much all terrorist bombers are trying to commit homicide. The useful distinction made by the phrase suicide bomber is that the bomber is also trying to kill themselves."

    26. Re:Hilarious by jc42 · · Score: 1

      "Wait! You're both right!" ;-)

      Part of the problem is that "race" is used in both colloquial English and in technical speech with rather different definitions. It is used technically as an informal synonym of "subspecies", and is similar in meaning to "breeding population"; the rough meaning is a group that has small but significant (for recognition, habitat choice, etc.) genetic differences from other populations.

      In general, colloquial English, it generally just means any recognizable group, often but not always with superficial but visible differences in appearance. But sometimes it's even less meaningful that that. In the US, one of the commonly-recognized "races" is "Hispanic", which of course is based on language and culture, and can refer to a person of any subspecies who speaks with a Spanish-sounding accent. This is a good illustration of how meaningless the term is in its general usage.

      There has been a general effort by biologists to avoid the use of the term, and it's not really officially part of standard terminology. But "subspecies" isn't understood by the general population, and "race" is one syllable rather than three, so the informal usage continues, especially when talking to the general public.

      In the case of medical discussions of problems with a genetic component, it's common to use "population" instead, but that has four syllables. ;-) It's mostly useful if the population can be given a name. Thus, Tay-Sachs disease seems to be from a mutation that appeared first in a small eastern-European Jewish population, which of course isn't a "race", but is a recognizable and namable sub-sub-population. Knowing this is medically useful in diagnosis, since it gives a good hint at which tests might be useful when the appropriate symptoms are seen.

      Sickle-cell disease is an interesting case, because its population is semi-genetic: It developed in malaria-plagued areas of central Africa, and partly defends against that disease. The population isn't actually a subspecies, since it includes people who are genetically quite different from each other. But the mutation(s) involved spread from group to group because it gives some immunity to malaria (at the cost of many early deaths from sickle-cell disease). Again, knowing about patients' central-African ancestry is medically useful in diagnosis, since it hints at what tests to try first when the symptoms are seen. In the US, the term "African-American" is a racial classification that correlates well with this disease, so it's medically useful despite being biologically somewhat bogus.

      The poison-ivy/oak/sumac/etc. problem is actually a lot more complicated, and much of the information about it is of poor scientific/medical quality. Interested readers might try googling for info about the Asian lacquer tree to find some of the most useful information. There is a wide variety of sensitivity to this toxin, and different human populations differ statistically in their reaction to it. There are sensitive and resistant people in all populations, and there are populations that are mostly at one or the other end of the spectrum. It's often medically classified as a "white" problem, but this is an extreme over-simplification. East Asians are often very resistant to it, but they generally know to give lacquered things a number of good washings before using them in ways that involve close physical contact, such as in tableware. Asian artists who work with this lacquer understand its toxicity fairly well, and know how to deal with it. But it's not a simple story, and there's a lot of mythology involved.

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    27. Re:Hilarious by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

      "No proven link"

      Your inability to understand how science is noted, and undermines every other thing you say.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    28. Re:Hilarious by hey! · · Score: 2

      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.

      Yeah, and perpetual motion too. See what your perpetual motion invention does for your standing in the physics faculty or your chances of getting an engineering job. It's discrimination -- against crackpots.

      Here's the problem with demanding that scientists take your humbug seriously: there's an endless supply of humbug in the world. It's effortless to manufacture bullshit out of thin air, and when that is disposed of it's effortless to make more. But science takes work, and turning scientists into professional humbug debunkers would force them to spend all their time trying to pick sense out of nonsense.

      Race had its chance as a scientific concept, but now that we can actually look at people's DNA it's obvious that race is humbug. When you look at the DNA in geographic populations, you see that they are highly genetically permeable. Certain simple traits like dark skin or fair hair may predominate in certain regions, but if you choose other traits like blood clotting proteins you'd get a very different "racial map". It's not so much that you *can't* create some set of three or four "races" by some clusters of randomly selected features, but that any scheme you come up with is just one of any number of equally justifiable divisions.

      And here's the kicker: the vast majority of human genetic diversity is found in Africa, so it certainly makes no sense at all to talk about an "African race". It turns out that we're all African; populations outside of Africa are just twigs on a bushy African tree.

      I strongly suggest that anyone who is proud of his racial heritage have his DNA analyzed by an independent lab, which costs $99 now. He may find he has a lot more things to be proud of than he imagined. One of my sisters turned out to be part Polynesian, which was a surprise. She's clearly our sister, but she was the only one of us who got dealt that gene when our parents' genomes were shuffled.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    29. Re:Hilarious by wiredlogic · · Score: 1

      The irony is that it is patently un-American to ban things that do no harm to others and yet these politicians have all taken an oath to uphold the constitution and will claim to be the most diligent patriots ever.

      --
      I am becoming gerund, destroyer of verbs.
    30. Re:Hilarious by jc42 · · Score: 1

      What's your point? Do you think that there are people who are immune to rising sea level? Gills maybe? Eh?

      Actually, there's at least one known population of humans that expect to benefit from rising sea level: the people of Scandinavia. That part of the world is still bobbing up from the loss of the ice sheets 18,000 years ago. Historically, the shorelines have been falling by about a meter per century. This causes ongoing problems, mostly due to ports turning into dry land. A few years back, I was in Finland and visited a historic site called Mustasaari ("black island"). It's not an island at all; it's about 10 km from the water. In 1600, it was an active port, and around 1350 it probably was an island. By 1700, the town was abandoned, reverting to forest and farmland, and the newer town of Vaasa somewhat to the west had taken over as the local port. Sometimes the ports can migrate downslope, but often the shoreline change doesn't allow that, and the town just dies, as the people move to some other area that's friendlier to their boats. Every port town in the area has always had to face the fact that all their investments in port facitlities, buildings, roads, etc. will become worthless in a few generations.

      So one source of humor in that area is based on how good "global warming" sounds. They'll not just be warmer, but their towns will stay put for longer, and you can pass your land and buildings on to your children. So far, the effect has been small, but supposedly measurable. The sea level will probably be nearly stable this century, though geologists predict that in another millenium or two, the Gulf of Bothnia and the Baltic Sea will be reduced to a set of smaller lake connected to the sea by a river.

      Along most other shorelines, the story is rather different, of course.

      (I've also read reports on the new species arriving on the Antarctic Peninsula. ;-)

      --
      Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
    31. Re:Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1
      But just like flat earth, and geocentric universe, they'll eventually catch up, and blame it on liberals.

      Side note - we had a perfect example of that not too far away a few years ago. A highway was being put through the area. Environmentalists were saying don't do it, for a range of reasons like bad location for wind crossing the mountain, but mainly that the road shouldn't run through pyritic Rock. Well the powers that be decided there was no pyritic rock there, and went right ahead.

      And then, the local rivers started running red, as the acid leached iron from the rocks. Made for a hell of an expensive mess to clean up.

      Then started the denials. "No one knew!" Then a local professor chimed in noting that geo classes went there every semester to study th eunusual pyritic rock outcropping in the area. That probably would have been suppressed, except that it had been done for decades.

      Finally, they blamed it on "the tree huggers". The reason? If the tree huggers hadn't gotten involved, they wouldn't have opposed them, and probably would have found the rock and changed the route. Umm, hilarious.

      Which isn't really a liberal or conservative thing. It's a resistance to any change of plan thing, followed by a refusal to accept the consequenses of stupidity and not listening to people who have knowledge that might not fit with your notions of the world.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    32. Re:Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      On the other hand global warming enthusiast have suggest jailing anyone with an education that is not a global warming superior. I think dialog is better.

      I see. And what state has made that policy official? Differing people have differing levels of thought, suggesting anyone should be jailed for anti AGW thoughtcrime is silly, and just proves there are many asshats on both sides.

      Side foray - since were in the land of AGW supporters having some odd ideas. There are people who believe that Global warming will mean the end of life on earth. That won't happen. It might be a bit different, and I'm pretty certain that humanity will be here yet. But we - as In the US, might not be at the top of the heap any more. Droughts, weird weather, water shortages and resulting wars, perhaps even internecine among ourselves who knows? We are here at the grace of the environment. I could come up with a plausible scenario where California declares war on Michigan, over water just as one thought game. Regardless, denialists might want to take a look at the strategic consequences of their denial. Granted they might not be alive in some of the scenarios, but given the family values principles of so many of them, seems a pity they don't give a damn about their grandchildren.

      Back to the subject at hand, if someone wants to believe that there is actually global cooling, or that the air will be filled with cotton candy - fine. Bring out the good science arguments, and we'll talk about it. But when the official word comes from a government banning science? That's pretty disturbing.

      The Scopes Monkey trial comes to mind, during the time when Tennessee made it illegal to teach evolution in state funded schools. Only the Biblical creationist rendering was allowed. Perhaps even more disturbing, it smacks of Lysenkoism, when the Russian Communists forced their political dogma upon biology.

      Denialists do not want dialog. It is getting hard to deny basic physics, and not look like a complete fool, so they need to make Global warming illegal. When they want your opinion, they'll tell you what your opinion is.

      This is the official theme song of denialists:

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Decent song as well

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    33. Re:Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      The amount of skin pigmentation (among many other things) is determined by genetics.

      That depends on how closely you look. The differences are small.

      I'm going to have to try to look it up, but there was a study that took a lot of people of various ethnicities/skin color, and facial features, and showed thousands of these photos to study subjects and asked them to find a dividing line where one could say a person is black or white or Asian, etc. Turns out thee are so many variations that no one could draw that line.

      Those skin pigments especially are a survival mechanism. The closer you get to the equator, the more you'd better be dark. And getting out of your zone means that as fair skinned people go closer to the equator, melanoma becomes a bigger risk. And I heard recently that any dark skinned people in Detroit do not get enough sun to manufacture Vitamin D.

      side note, I suspect that the Vitamin D issue for even fair skinned people has cropped up as result of people always wearing sunscreen. When I was a kid, we were cautioned against taking D supplements because we got enough from fortified milk and going outside.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    34. Re:Hilarious by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      Even 'species' is not entirely without controversy, as one can see from the ongoing dichotomy between those that regard Neanderthals as a separate species vs those that consider them a subspecies of Homo sapiens.

      My wife insists that I am proof that Neanderthals are still among us.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    35. Re:Hilarious by LessThanObvious · · Score: 1

      Science makes Jesus sad.

    36. Re:Hilarious by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      One side of the abortion debate describes foes as "anti-choice" rather than "pro-life."

      To be honest, that one seems to make sense - these "pro-life" people are more likely to supports wars and the death penalty, so calling them "pro-life" seems kind of disingenuous.

      People long ago learned that there is a lot more value in being "for" something rather than "against" something. Pro is positive, while against is a negative trait. Even if we don't state that sort of thing, we put an unconscious bonus on the person who is for something rather than the negative person who is against another thing, even if you're only splitting hairs at this point.

      Which do you think "sounds" more positive, the person in favor of restricting a woman's right to choose what to do with her own body.... or the person who wishes to protect the lives of those yet born? They imply the same thing -- limiting access to abortion, but the way in which you frame a question can greatly affect how the average person will think about it.

  5. Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by catchblue22 · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am really curious as to the talking points the climate deniers will come up with to defend a government banning the use of particular words. Has it really come to this?

    --
    This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
  6. It is almost like by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They want to be submerged under 20m of water.

    1. Re:It is almost like by gargleblast · · Score: 1

      Considering (1) the quote provided does not confirm your thesis, and (2) the quote is a misquote, you are doubly wrong and an idiot.

    2. Re:It is almost like by Darinbob · · Score: 1

      They want Tallahassee to have beach front property too.

    3. Re:It is almost like by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      to be fair, al gore misqoted the scientist he was quoting to make things seem worse then the scientist was actually claiming. so if al gore misquoted the scientist, its hard to hold the people accountable for misquoting a misquote

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    4. Re:It is almost like by sjames · · Score: 1

      They missed it by a bit, but parts of Florida DO see sea water come up out of the ground from time ti time, leaving the area under water.

      Not bad for the '70s when the most powerful supercomputer was less powerful than today's common desktop PC.

    5. Re:It is almost like by Overzeetop · · Score: 2

      Quoting a politician when discussing science is usually a bad idea, no matter which side it is. Then again, listening to zealots (again, on both sides) instead of scientists is just as bad.

      --
      Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    6. Re:It is almost like by BCGlorfindel · · Score: 1

      They want to be submerged under 20m of water.

      Hopefully this was meant to be modded up as 'funny'? Without a timeline given I guess we could take the long view that in another thousand years that's what Florida might be facing, but within the lifetimes of anyone living in Florida today 20m is well outside the most extreme error bars of the most extreme scenario projections of the IPCC. You know, those sciencing guys that road Gore's coat tails to a nobel prize on the subject.

    7. Re:It is almost like by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      I truly expected to be living in a frozen tundra by now. At least that is what I was taught was coming when I was kid. In the Northeast.

    8. Re:It is almost like by hey! · · Score: 1

      Here's the thing. The more wealth you have, the less purely financial reason you have not to foul your own nest. Because you can always buy another nest. An oil company doesn't worry that an oil well will run dry in 20 years if it at any point in time before that it'll have made its investment back plus a normal profit. Likewise a developer doesn't worry about turning paradise into a garbage pit in twenty years if he's made a similar return. Capital will simply flow to the next relatively unspoiled place, because capital is efficient -- on its own terms.

      That doesn't mean that rich people are necessarily environmental exploiters any more than middle-class people are environmental saints -- which they clearly aren't. But it does mean that long-term impacts aren't a priority for a government which serves business interests more or less exclusively.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    9. Re:It is almost like by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      One interesting thing about Arctic sea ice this year is at record lows for this time of year and may set a new low for maximum annual sea ice extent (since satellite records started in 1979). "Arctic sea ice plunges to record low extent for late winter"

    10. Re:It is almost like by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      It's true that 20 meters is rather hyperbolic. The highest projections I've seen for sea level rise by 2100 is 2 meters (6 feet). But the last time CO2 in the atmosphere was at 400 ppm sea level was over 20 meters (65 feet) higher than it is now so it may just be a matter of how long it takes to get there. It could be less than 1000 years.

    11. Re:It is almost like by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Understatement. 1970s supercomputers fall ridiculously far short of my phone in computing power.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    12. Re:It is almost like by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      They want Tallahassee to have beach front property too.

      Damn you, Lex Luther!!!

  7. China & U.S hand in hand. by Kekke · · Score: 2

    As China for example is blocking citizen access to the new Pollution Documentary found here:
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

    I think: Huh, thank God there's still some sane democracy elsewhere on this globe.
    Then I'm hit in the face by idiotic actions like this one....

    Do those ppl really think that denying is the answer ?
    Does the problem disappear by acting like Amoeba?
    Are these individuals actually so blinded by economy, money, growth...
    What's the major malfunction here ?

  8. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by Beryllium+Sphere(tm) · · Score: 4, Informative

    They could re-use all the things they said in North Carolina, when passing legislation requiring coastal development planning to ignore sea level rises.

    http://abcnews.go.com/US/north...

  9. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by CaptainLard · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  10. those are not the only words to avoid. by turkeydance · · Score: 1

    your choice, depending upon the year.

  11. That would be a "red herring", Alex. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    I'm sorry, but your answer must be in the form of a question. The correct answer was, "What is a red herring?"

    Would you like to go for Double Jeopardy, where the stakes can really change?

  12. Re:That's fair by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    Think of it like the Family Values Council chairman practicing homosexuality, or "fair and balanced" meaning neither.

  13. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by blue+trane · · Score: 1

    Sounds like faith-based reasoning.

  14. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by readin · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  15. Re: That's fair by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

    Recognizing that a terrorist group doesn't represent the entirety of a major worldwide religion must be something hard for you to comprehend then.

    Do you have this same problem with Christian terrorists such as members of the prolife movement who have murdered doctors? Or even just the trolls of the Westboro Baptist Church?

  16. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by dacullen · · Score: 2

    Well, except for "Sunny Day Flooding" http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05... I'm sure I'll get the NY Times is an unreliable, liberal Climate Change Shill response, rather than looking at the FACTS

  17. Need a new vocabulary? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ocean and atmosphere change = climate change
    global heating = global warming
    viability = sustainability

    Should be fine for a while until they legislate the next edition of the Newspeak dictionary.

  18. They are paid to do this. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Republican politicians are paid to do this. If you want the truth don't vote republican.

    1. Re:They are paid to do this. by ganjadude · · Score: 1, Offtopic

      this gets modded 5 informative???? Come on /. you are better than that

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    2. Re:They are paid to do this. by circletimessquare · · Score: 1, Troll

      what are we better than? the truth?

      the GOP is the party of stupid. who said that?

      the GOP said that:

      http://thehill.com/video/in-th...

      you haven't noticed a connection between incredibly ignorant, antiscience statements and the GOP? oh i'm sure you can find a democrat who said something stupid. and i can find ten republicans for every one odd democrat

      do you want to bet on that?

      let me get started:

      http://www.mediaite.com/tv/rep...

      http://www.scientificamerican....

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08...

      that's off the top of my head

      how many more do you want?

      --
      intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
    3. Re:They are paid to do this. by rrohbeck · · Score: 1

      Mod parent up!

      --
      thegodmovie.com - watch it
    4. Re:They are paid to do this. by Required+Snark · · Score: 1
      Nice of you to point this out. I'm sure that they will be updated immediately to avoid using prohibited language.

      Governor Scott appreciates your help.

      --
      Why is Snark Required?
    5. Re:They are paid to do this. by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

      this gets modded 5 informative???? Come on /. you are better than that

      You're right, it was incomplete. If you want the truth, don't vote republican or democrat. Not technically false, just not the whole story.

      --
      "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
    6. Re:They are paid to do this. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      Do you think they'll be updating the story to show it may have a few "flaws"?

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    7. Re:They are paid to do this. by dave420 · · Score: 1

      You're the one who thinks a few examples of the words in question shows there was no concerted effort to stop them from being used. You seem to think the government can never make a mistake, and always gets what it wants. Which is not surprising, giving your posting history and personal beliefs.

    8. Re:They are paid to do this. by pipingguy · · Score: 1

      Yup, time to leave Slashdot.

    9. Re:They are paid to do this. by houghi · · Score: 1

      Same goes for the other party as well.

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    10. Re:They are paid to do this. by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Lets all at least agree that our political system is rotted through via money. Politicians should be kissing up to voters first, not big donors.

      Maybe it's not possible to prevent all big-money influence, but at least lets try.

      --
      Table-ized A.I.
    11. Re:They are paid to do this. by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

      Sad, but true.

      Also true;
      The Democratic politicians are paid to do this. If you want the truth don't vote democratic.

      Now what?

    12. Re:They are paid to do this. by ganjadude · · Score: 1

      +1

      --
      have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
    13. Re:They are paid to do this. by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

      If they can't manage to remove those references from a public web site then there is no concerted effort to keep them from being used.

      You seem to think the government can never make a mistake, and always gets what it wants. Which is not surprising, giving your posting history and personal beliefs.

      If you believe that I think that government can never make a mistake then you have no useful idea about what I think despite your implied familiarity with my posting history and beliefs. Perhaps your should try making more arguments yourself instead of playing mind reader since you do it so badly.
      \

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    14. Re:They are paid to do this. by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Yup, time to leave Slashdot.

      The best thing to ever happen to Slashdot was an exodus years ago to kuro5hin.org.

  19. Re:Overblown by adewolf · · Score: 1

    Promotes ignorance and stifles learning. Then comes the book banning, then the book burning starts state mandated. How long before beheading of non state sanctioned religions believers will start/ This banning of any knowledge or phrases or anything has to stop, now.

    --
    "The Brady Bunch is back...working homicide"
  20. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    How is this any different than the firings and lack of funding for anyone that researches valid non-anthropomorphic climate change causes?

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  21. Re:The Obama Calculus by tshawkins · · Score: 2

    Twat

  22. 5 words you cannot say in Florida? by ramriot · · Score: 5, Funny

    So as a Floridian federal employee I cannot say:-

    "There is no such thing as human induced [climate change], or [global warming] as it was once called and my belief in this will last as long as the [sustainability] of a congressman's gravy train."

    but I can say:-

    "You climate deniers are full of S..t, and are definitely corrupt and in the pocket of the oil industry"

    OK, I can go with that.

  23. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by vivian · · Score: 2

    King Cnut famously demonstrated that no matter how powerful, rulers have no power over the the oceans and the tide.

    Sooner or later, legislators in Florida, lacking his wisdom, are destined to learn that lesson the hard way,

     

  24. Re:Global Warming is NONSENSE!! by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 1

    It's CLIMATE CHANGE, not global warming and you seem to agree that the climate has been changing and you even go so far as to attribute climate change as having some impact by man (the romans)

    So it would seem you agree with the scientific community in that many aspects of CLIMATE CHANGE are man made, while others are entirely part of the Earth's natural process.

    What? You didn't intend to agree with the scientific community? Well better hurry back on over to cliimatedenialforjesuswiki.com to find new "talking points" to shitpost on /.

  25. Good thing English is such a flexible language by byuu · · Score: 5, Funny

    climate change => weather modification, temperature shifting
    global warming => worldwide heating, earth roasting
    sustainability => maintainability, continuity
    Florida => laughingstock of the world

    Easy, right?

  26. bushwacky by swell · · Score: 1

    Wasn't there a Republican Presidential hopeful in the Florida governor's mansion at the time? Is this what we can expect if he gets elected to the White House? None of us will be allowed to say 'climate change'.

    --
    ...omphaloskepsis often...
    1. Re:bushwacky by hey! · · Score: 1

      Now I so happen to know some people who worked in environmental related fields for Florida under Jeb Bush, and the word is that he's not bad to work with one-on-one, out of the media spotlight.

      This policy is under the administration of Rick Scott, a man whose election makes you look at the Florida electorate and scratch your head. This is a guy whose credentials as a successful businessman include bailing out with a ten million dollar golden parachute before his company paid 600 million in fines for committing Medicare fraud.

      --
      Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
    2. Re:bushwacky by Rakarra · · Score: 1

      Is this what we can expect if he gets elected to the White House? None of us will be allowed to say 'climate change'.

      Wasn't it George W. Bush's administration that promoted the use of the term "climate change" over "global warming?"

  27. Re:Seperation of Church and State by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    cali cant fall into the ocean soon enough for me either!

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  28. Taken to its logical conclusion by radarskiy · · Score: 1

    From the article: “We were told that we were not allowed to discuss anything that was not a true fact,”

    Why does Florida hate gravity?

  29. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by rahvin112 · · Score: 1

    This is a serious speech restriction that won't last 2 seconds in court. Government as an employer receives no additional leeway on restricting free speech. This is censorship plain and simple and it's a prior restraint on speech that the courts will not allow.

    All that's needed is a single employee to challenge the law.

  30. Re:Global Warming is NONSENSE!! by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    you are putting words in their mouth. They didnt agree that men had anything to do with it, they only said it has been happening "since the romans" thats a time marker, not a marker of the cause.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  31. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by readin · · Score: 2

    It will probably hold up easily so long as the restriction only applies while they're on the job.

    As for beyond work, you might be surprised. I believe there are laws restricting federal employees from doing things like doing campaign work for candidates for federal office.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  32. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by Crashmarik · · Score: 2

    “You can fool some of the people some of the time -- and that's enough to make a decent living.” - W.C. Fields

  33. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    So you think liberty can magically make sea levels recede? I've heard some Americans mythologize, but I never knew they thought they had superpowers.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  34. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    And you have some evidence for this claim, right?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  35. Guv'nuh Skeletor by bmo · · Score: 1

    ... is yet another one of the teabagistan nutjobs that make me wonder if there is anyone left in the Republican party that isn't fucking nuts.

    I mean, the Democrats aren't any great shakes (I abhor Hillary - she's morphed into just another neocon hawk), but the psychopathy exhibited by those with an R next to their names is just absolutely stunning. I look at the current list of the Presidential candidates that the RNC has foisted upon us voters, and it's a clown-car of bottom-feeding grifters and scumbags.

    When they come to NH, I'm going to mosey down the hill to the Barley House (it's a 6 minute walk) just to get my picture taken so I can say "I was there when the animal atop Donald Trump's head ate Scott Walker."

    --
    BMO

    1. Re:Guv'nuh Skeletor by Uberbah · · Score: 1

      I mean, the Democrats aren't any great shakes (I abhor Hillary - she's morphed into just another neocon hawk)

      She can challenge Jeb Bush from the right. Iraq War, Libya, Keystone, TPP....she could highlight her conservative record next to his comparatively liberal one as Florida's governor.

  36. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    How is it different? Perhaps because the policy in Florida being reported is real and what you're claiming is utter nonsense.

  37. censorship is wrong by Karmashock · · Score: 1

    In all forms for all sides.

    --
    I've decided to stop wasting my time responding to AC trolls/sockpuppets... so if you want a response from me... login.
  38. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    and some of those bans make perfect sense: pending litigation, proprietary IP, strategy, confidentiality, personal info, etc.

    but banning basic scientific fact?

    that's a whole new level of ignorant douchebaggery

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  39. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by readin · · Score: 1

    but banning basic scientific fact?

    Even if there were such a thing as "basic scientific fact" this wouldn't come anywhere close to it. This is complex theory based on many diverse data points with no possibility of controlled testing. I'm not saying it's wrong. But it isn't basic and unfortunately it may not be fact until it is too late.

    --
    I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
  40. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    You might think that, wouldn't you?

    Sustainable Initiatives
    Bureau of Beaches and Coastal Systems

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  41. how about "gulf oxygen levels" by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    can we say that?

    "invasive species"

    "coral bleaching"

    "algal bloom"

    "dead zone"

    ooh, here's a favorite:

    "huuricane"

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  42. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    this is millions of data points and the consensus of 99% of researchers across the entire spectrum of specialties and topics

    to deny at this point is willful prideful ignorance

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  43. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  44. A better application of terms by hambone142 · · Score: 1

    We need a climate change in government where honesty is a priority. Additionally, there is so much hot air coming from politics that it's causing global warming. All of this crap surely isn't sustainable.

  45. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 2

    There's all funding in the world available for that research. It happens as a natural part of AGW research since you have to understand all factors. If you banned that research, we wouldn't be able to say anything meaningful about climate change.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  46. Re: That's fair by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

    Recognizing that a terrorist group doesn't represent the entirety of a major worldwide religion must be something hard for you to comprehend then.

    Technically, it doesn't represent "the majority" as in the people involved, but if by "religion", you mean the mindset, then I'd say it definitely represents theism pretty well.

    --
    Ezekiel 23:20
  47. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    What are you going to belive, your lying eyes that show Florida isn't under water, or alarmists that say it was under water 15 years ago?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  48. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Do you think that totalitarianism is the answer?

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  49. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by cold+fjord · · Score: 2, Insightful

    If you RTFA -

    Passed by a female Democratic governor
    Limited to 4 years
    Written because the models predicting doom weren't trusted and offered no useful guidance on what to if if 2,100 sq miles were going to be under water

    If the predictions of doom* in 100 years are correct they would still have 96 years to act. That might be enough.

    * Sea level rises just over 1 meter/39 inches in 100 years

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  50. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by AK+Marc · · Score: 1

    The difference is this is real...

    --
    Learn to love Alaska
  51. ...and politicians? by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Most states ... have rules about discussing promoting political views on the job.

    That's funny I swear I've seen state politicians promoting their political views while on the job. I've almost never seen them promoting well established scientific discoveries though.

  52. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Or, ignoring your weird false dichotomies, you could believe the actual science which shows "doing nothing" is not an option.

  53. Re:Global Warming is NONSENSE!! by dave420 · · Score: 1

    They do say that, but then they confuse Northern Europe with the world, and then it just gets pathetic, much like every single piece of "global warming is a myth!" hysteria out there. You are better than this, Mr. Dude.

  54. Re: That's fair by dave420 · · Score: 1

    Correlation does not imply causation, as you should very well know. You are assuming that the only difference between the peaceful and the violent is the religion of those involved, which is clearly specious beyond belief. You seem to forget that if we applied your logic to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Christianity immediately becomes nothing more than a code-word for rampant terrorism. I doubt you'd agree with the findings of that logic, yet you seem more than willing to accept it when applied to people you don't seem too worried about or knowledgeable of. That speaks volumes about your willingness to throw over a billion people under the bus for some short-lived, fictional feeling of understanding, instead of actually undertaking the task of learning the complex reasons as to why there is an overlap between certain religions, a certain region, certain minerals, and certain forms of rather belligerent foreign policy.

    Or you can just make stuff up which absolves you of any complicity. I guess that's easier, so just do that and hope the bad men go away on their own volition.

  55. News speak == Newspeak by Celarent+Darii · · Score: 1

    The modern media is no longer about communicating the news. Its is committed to instituting ideology. If you control the vocabulary of the debate, you control the outcome of the debate.

    From Orwell's 1984

    The purpose of Newspeak was not only to provide a medium of expression for the world-view and mental habits proper to the devotees of Ingsoc, but to make all other modes of thought impossible. It was intended that when Newspeak had been adopted once and for all and Oldspeak forgotten, a heretical thought — that is, a thought diverging from the principles of Ingsoc — should be literally unthinkable, at least so far as thought is dependent on words. Its vocabulary was so constructed as to give exact and often very subtle expression to every meaning that a Party member could properly wish to express, while excluding all other meanings and also the possibility of arriving at them by indirect methods. This was done partly by the invention of new words, but chiefly by eliminating undesirable words and by stripping such words as remained of unorthodox meanings, and so far as possible of all secondary meanings whatever. To give a single example. The word free still existed in Newspeak, but it could only be used in such statements as ‘This dog is free from lice’ or ‘This field is free from weeds’. It could not be used in its old sense of ‘politically free’ or ‘intellectually free’ since political and intellectual freedom no longer existed even as concepts, and were therefore of necessity nameless. Quite apart from the suppression of definitely heretical words, reduction of vocabulary was regarded as an end in itself, and no word that could be dispensed with was allowed to survive. Newspeak was designed not to extend but to diminish the range of thought, and this purpose was indirectly assisted by cutting the choice of words down to a minimum.

  56. Alternatives? by bickerdyke · · Score: 1

    Did that order at least contain instructions on what words to use instead? Or are they supposed to make up their own replacement-words?

    Yeah... give the old euphemism-spiral a new spin....

    --
    bickerdyke
  57. Notice they don't mention temprature? by rs79 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Wouldn't you expect them to say "It's gotten x degrees warmer every year" for some value of x?

    Notice they stopped postings graphs of how much warmer it is? They used to.

    The sum total of all harm is itemised in one paragraph: "The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the state’s beaches over the next 85 years."

    How can the sea rise only on 30% of beaches?

    climte.gov has a nice temperature dashboard that has all the data you can play with and graph in realtime. May I suggest you go and look at it to find out what x is? Aren't you curious?

    The explanation for the 30% figure is twofold. If you'll notice, where they ripped up all the trees, erosion takes place. In the Keys, whihc they can't touch, not so much.

    Also, they've been pumping groundwater out for ages. Do you think this leaves behind a great huge hole and a vacuum? No really, the land sort of sinks:
    http://www.nature.com/news/sou...

    --
    Need Mercedes parts ?
    1. Re:Notice they don't mention temprature? by CrimsonAvenger · · Score: 2

      Wouldn't you expect them to say "It's gotten x degrees warmer every year" for some value of x?

      Unfortunately, that value "x" would be somewhere below 0.02 based on the last 35 years of so of global (note the "global" - I have no clue what FL's temps have done in the same time frame) temperature changes.

      You won't frighten a lot of people by saying "it's a 50th of a degree warmer than last year, you fool!!!".

      --

      "I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
    2. Re:Notice they don't mention temprature? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You are an idiot. "30% of the beaches" doesn't mean that only 30% of the geographical land-sea intersections are at risk. It means that of 100% of those intersections, they're all at risk for an average of 30% loss. The beaches aren't 1-dimensional lines. And 30% chance of rain doesn't mean the same thing either.

      Florida already has a major greenhouse effect which is why summer temperature ranges have not been much affected. However the winter is a different story. While Boston was swearing at the snow, last week the state of Florida was within a short spit of 90 degrees from end to end. Except for a few short days, there basically was no winter. Even in the north, people were switching on their air conditioners in early January, which is normally the coldest days of the year.

    3. Re:Notice they don't mention temprature? by squiggleslash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The sum total of all harm is itemised in one paragraph: "The state of Florida is the region most susceptible to the effects of global warming in this country, according to scientists. Sea-level rise alone threatens 30 percent of the stateâ(TM)s beaches over the next 85 years."

      How can the sea rise only on 30% of beaches?

      It can't. However it's perfectly possible for 30% of something to be threatened by something that touches 100% of something. It's not hard, and I'm not sure why you think that all beaches are equally vulnerable to identical changes in sea levels. Outside of a few carefully landscaped beaches built over decades to be popular for tourists, I've not seen two beaches that are alike in any way.

      --
      You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
    4. Re:Notice they don't mention temprature? by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Why would you expect "x degrees warmer every year", when global atmospheric temperature varies for other reasons? After the unusually warm 1998, it took years before the temperatures got back up to that level - the difference being that the current normal seems to be somewhere around a 1998 fluke.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  58. oh dear by cascadingstylesheet · · Score: 1

    Whatever shall we do, without buzzwords?

  59. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by Required+Snark · · Score: 1

    You're absolutely right. We must immediately allocate significant funding to give flat earth advocates the opportunity to make their case, because there are two sides to every issue. We also need to consider phlogiston theory, orgone energy, and whether sacrificial animal entrails can divine the future. All theories must be considered equally valid without regard to other supporting evidence.

    --
    Why is Snark Required?
  60. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    it does not have a problem with any "sea level rise", Global Warming", or "climate change" or any such.

    [citation needed]

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  61. Re: That's fair by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    You are assuming that the only difference between the peaceful and the violent is the religion of those involved, which is clearly specious beyond belief.

    For at least some people, religion is the catalyst which turns wrong thought into wrong action. It is also a source of wrong thought, so it's both the impetus to violence, and the excuse for same in one package.

    You seem to forget that if we applied your logic to the Troubles in Northern Ireland, Christianity immediately becomes nothing more than a code-word for rampant terrorism.

    What? No. It does however encompass rampant terrorism, and justifiably so. Christianity has been used as the excuse for a great deal of murderous violence on all scales from lynchings to international wars.

    Or you can just make stuff up which absolves you of any complicity.

    You mean like religion?

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  62. It is OK by franblets · · Score: 1

    The will be one of the first to be under water.

  63. Try North Carolina by Overzeetop · · Score: 4, Interesting

    "The law approved by the senate on 12 June [2012] banned scientists in state agencies from using exponential extrapolation to predict sea-level rise, requiring instead that they stick to linear projections based on historical data."

    No need to limit talking in NC, they just pass legislation which limits sea rise. Science through legislation. Done and done.

    http://www.scientificamerican....

    --
    Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
    1. Re:Try North Carolina by riverat1 · · Score: 1

      I doubt you have a clue about what empirical tests can be usefully applied to climate models.

    2. Re:Try North Carolina by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      No need to limit talking in NC, they just pass legislation which limits sea rise. Science through legislation. Done and done.

      Yes, Why didn't they tell us it was that simple a long time ago?

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
    3. Re:Try North Carolina by Ol+Olsoc · · Score: 1

      I doubt you have a clue about what empirical tests can be usefully applied to climate models.

      Yeah, but he sounded really smart for about a half second there.

      --
      The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
  64. Tragic Loss of Freedom by JimSadler · · Score: 1

    Florida has a lunatic right wing governor who is a hazard to all of us. This attempt to strangle free speech is typical of the right wing. The southern end of Miami Beach is already in trouble from rising seas. The storm drains designed to get rid of our heavy rains now act as a conduit for ocean water flooding the streets there. Every time we get a tide that is a few inches higher than average the streets flood with ocean water and if it rains there is no place for the water to drain at all. It is already a multi billion dollar problem here. Frankly Miami is so heavily invested with mortgages and insurance policies that any serious hurricane which hits Miami could wipe out the entire economy of the US. Major hurricane strikes tend to occur in Miami about every thirty years or so and about two absurdly strong storms hit Miami per century. The situation in Miami could make Katrina's strike on New Orleans look trivial. There are no real plans in effect to do anything about such an event.

  65. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I can see why you'd want to poke at the Democrats, but to mention her gender seems ridiculous. Are you really that far gone that you think her gender matters at all in this discussion, and accidentally just showed everyone you're a bigot? It seems like it.

  66. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by dave420 · · Score: 1

    No-one is calling for a totalitarian response, just sensible regulation the likes of which have been used in the past to mitigate environmental issues exacerbated by industry. You proffering this false dichotomy only serves to show you in the most unflattering light.

  67. What probably really happened by cirby · · Score: 1

    Boss: "Sheesh - you guys blame climate change for EVERYTHING. Tone it down a bit. Just use it when it actually applies. No, you weren't late for work because of climate change."

    Department Head: "Do not refer to climate change in in official document unless it pertains to the actual science, and not just to fill in a dull paragraph in a press release."

    Assistant to the Department Head: "I hear the Boss doesn't want us to talk about climate change."

    Low-level Flunky: "OHMIGOD! They're banning any reference to climate change or global warming!"

    Reporter: "So it's an official policy, but it's not written down, and you can't tell me who came up with the policy? And we can only find four people who say this is true, without evidence or documentation? CONSPIRACY!"

    1. Re:What probably really happened by Patent+Lover · · Score: 1

      As Dr. Evil so aptly put it.... Righhhhhhhhhhhhhhht.

  68. wait by superwiz · · Score: 1

    I thought the government was supposed to be prohibited from endorsing any religious position. So how is shamanism any different?

    --
    Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
  69. Re:Muzzled by ChrisMaple · · Score: 1

    The reason that government employees should be prohibited from discussing political subjects while on the job is something like this:

    "I think we must stop global warming, don't you, Mr. Taxpayer? You don't? Well, I'm going to have to examine your tax records because I think you deliberately underpaid. And my friend here, the policeman, is going to follow you everywhere you go, and even the slightest vehicle infraction is going to draw the maximum fine."

    People able to legally use force of arms against individuals should not be allowed to enforce their whims, and being allowed to state their whims is the first step in enforcing them.

    --
    Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
  70. Its amazing!!! by Bonzoli · · Score: 1

    Its amazing the effect of Untaxed Inherited wealth in this country. Koch, DeVos, Walton, etc. etc.

  71. Location, location, location by mdsolar · · Score: 1

    North Carolina does not allow planning to take account of sea level rise because it impedes permitting new development. http://abcnews.go.com/US/north... Florida faces wide scale loss of real estate which hurts some constituencies if dealt with honestly.

  72. What the Bongo Player said by Gim+Tom · · Score: 1

    This does, somehow, seem to be applicable.

    Reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled.
    --- Richard P. Feynman

    The experiment is in progress. Nature will give us the answer in time, but by then it will probably be too late do do anything about it if we don't like that answer.

  73. Re: That's fair by dave420 · · Score: 1

    I agree with everything you said. I fear you and the person I replied to are making different points. I was merely pointing out that terrorism doesn't "belong" to any single religion - they are all equally as capable of being perverted in order to commit hideous behaviour.

  74. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by CaptainLard · · Score: 1

    Well good on them for at least talking about it!

    Also, they smartly chose "voluntary, non-regulatory" as the very first words to describe the program instead of, you know, what its purpose is. What would be very interesting is to see an objective report on how effective Florida's approach is to reducing pollution compared to say San Fransisco's plastic bag ban or composting requirements. I wonder if you could somehow control for the Hippie vs Retiree mindset?

  75. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Blah blah blah Koch-bot.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  76. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by MightyMartian · · Score: 1

    Where did I say that? And who exactly is proposing totalitarianism? We're talking about limiting CO2 emissions here, not tattooing a fucking number on your arm.

    Christ, we don't let people dump PCPs in rivers, do you think that's dictatorial?

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  77. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by macbeth66 · · Score: 1

    Why are you so afraid of the governor's gender being revealed?

  78. Re:That's fair by dywolf · · Score: 1

    So then you are of the opinion that the Peoples' Democratic Republic of North Korea really is democratic?
    After all, it's right there in the name, so it must be true!

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  79. Countdown to Idoicracy is reality by sdinfoserv · · Score: 1

    Yet another mind boggling ignorant proclamation from the republican tainted south. Quick, let’s elect its head (AKA Jeb Bush) leader of the free (?) world.

  80. Re: That's fair by dywolf · · Score: 1

    I came across this same BS on Facebook the other day.
    Bigotry disguising as Psuedo-History.

    We have not been at war with Islam since day 1. The Barbary States were but one group if Islamic peoples, specifically a subset of the Ottoman Empire, whom we did not go to war with. Also not involved in that war was Persia, the greater middle east, southeast asia, or any of a hsot of them nations that also were and are Islamic. Further our own actual declarations of war against the Barbary States, and our diplomatic actions and peace treaties afterward all made it abundantly clear and repeatedly stated that the conflict was NOT one with Islam. And we even won that war with the help of Muslims, including Barbers.

    Our President's, both Adams and Jefferson, even took part in Islamic Religious rituals during meetings with Islamic abassadors and representatives (after all, POTUS is considered chief diplomat). Can you imagine of a modern POTUS did that?

    So anyway, once again you prove you are simply a troll.

    --
    The guy who said the election was rigged won the presidency with the second-most votes.
  81. Re:Muzzled by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    Good. Nice to see government employees muzzled for a change. Climate change is a fraud.

    And yet temperatures continue to rise, ice continues to melt, sea level continues to rise (look out Florida) and the oceans continue to acidify.

  82. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    If the predictions of doom* in 100 years are correct they would still have 96 years to act. That might be enough.

    Huh!? It's not like all the sea level rise waits for 96 years then manifests suddenly. It just continues to slowly rise and long before it reaches the 1 meter in 100 years there will be effects that have to be dealt with. Even 6 inches of rise will have a serious effect on NC's barrier islands.

  83. Re: That's fair by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    I wasnt trying to say that all of them are terrorists, but I am saying that it is being used as a tool today for so, and has been for hundreds of years. That doersnt negate what others have done in the past, but it would be foolish to also ignore the reality. and the reality is, people claiming to belong to one group have been at war with america since day one.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  84. Re: That's fair by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    again, im in no way trying to say it is all of them, but to pretend a large portion of them are not for the sake of political correctness is just silly. the truth is that people using the name of their religion have been at war with us from day one and that is a fact.

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  85. Re:Seperation of Church and State by ganjadude · · Score: 1

    true, just the word "vaccine"

    --
    have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
  86. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by circletimessquare · · Score: 1

    thank you

    all that left denying climate change are the alex jones herp derp "it's all a conspiracy" morons

    --
    intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
  87. Re:Flordia doesn't have those issues yet by riverat1 · · Score: 1

    What are you going to belive, your lying eyes that show Florida isn't under water, or alarmists that say it was under water 15 years ago?

    Scientists who actually study sea level have never said any such thing. When I've looked into such claims I usually find that people like you are taking the quotes completely out of context and ignoring the time frame on predictions.

  88. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  89. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    The science is settled, like the aether, land bridges and stomach Ulcers being cause by spicy food.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  90. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    Would it matter if I did, you'd just deny it anyway.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  91. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    we wouldn't be able to say anything meaningful about climate change.

    You're absolutely right. It all has to be 100% pro the status quo or your some kind of idiotic, fox news, denier. I'm glad you are starting to see the problems with the lack of a debate here.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  92. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by ArsonSmith · · Score: 1

    At least as real as AWG.

    --
    Paying taxes to buy civilization is like paying a hooker to buy love.
  93. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    I've noticed that a lot of things that seem true to you aren't so. That is just one of the many hazards of your ideology.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  94. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by cold+fjord · · Score: 1

    Actually there have been calls for massive government intervention and widespread, harsh restrictions on people's daily activities, not to mention the economy as a whole, in order to "combat" what is now referred to by the nonspecific term "climate change." Your often uninformed commentary from a fringe perspective does little to flatter you.

    --
    much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
  95. Just Ignore... by Stubbyfingers · · Score: 1

    ...the sea water around your ankles on the OBT. It'll be fine.

  96. the open discussion of ideas: by Thud457 · · Score: 1

    Teach the contreversy
    Since my raving loon superstition is just as valid as your scienmatific theoretory.

    --

    the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

  97. Fire is needed to fight this fire by Bust0ut · · Score: 1

    It is naive to think that a planet measures with a human; that a scientist is anything other than a intelligent person with a drive to solve issues.

    --
    He is crazy if you think about it; I am not.
  98. Re:Climate Deniers: What is your defence for this? by Rakarra · · Score: 1

    Just because there's another side doesn't mean the two sides are equally valid.