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."

57 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 Darinbob · · Score: 2

      Odd that science is considered politics though.

    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.

    8. 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. . . .
    9. 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.

    10. 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)
    11. 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" ...

    12. 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.

    13. 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).

    14. 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.

    15. 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!
    16. 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
    17. 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.
    18. Re:i'th Post by tnk1 · · Score: 2

      Solar death panels.

  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 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 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
  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 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.
    2. 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.
    3. 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.
    4. 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.
    5. 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
    6. 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.

    7. 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.
    8. 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.
  5. 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 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. 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 ?

  7. 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...

  8. 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.

  9. 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.
  10. 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

  11. 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.

  12. Re:The Obama Calculus by tshawkins · · Score: 2

    Twat

  13. 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.

  14. 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,

     

  15. 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?

  16. 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.
  17. 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

  18. 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.
  19. 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
  20. 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
  21. ...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.

  22. 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 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.
  23. 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?