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."

31 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 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
    4. 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.

    5. 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. . . .
    6. 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.

    7. 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)
    8. 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" ...

    9. 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.

    10. 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).

    11. 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
  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

  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.

  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 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
    3. 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.

  5. It is almost like by Ice+Station+Zebra · · Score: 4, Insightful

    They want to be submerged under 20m of water.

  6. 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...

  7. 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.

  8. 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.
  9. 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.

  10. 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.

  11. 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?

  12. 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 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.
  13. 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?