Full Version: Censorship or Activism
QUOTE
Memo to scientists: Don't discuss polar bears
POSTED: 2:38 p.m. EST, March 9, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change. But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
<snip>
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
<snip>
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
<snip>
POSTED: 2:38 p.m. EST, March 9, 2007
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration's history of muzzling dissent over global climate change. But H. Dale Hall, director of the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, said this policy was a long-standing one, meant to honor international protocols for meetings where the topics of discussion are negotiated in advance.
<snip>
Listed as a "new requirement" for foreign travelers on U.S. government business, the memo says that requests for foreign travel "involving or potentially involving climate change, sea ice, and/or polar bears" require special handling, including notice of who will be the official spokesman for the trip.
The Fish and Wildlife Service top officials need assurance that the spokesman, "the one responding to questions on these issues, particularly polar bears" understands the administration's position on these topics.
<snip>
Polar bears are a hot topic for the Bush administration, which decided in December to consider whether to list the white-furred behemoths as "threatened" under the Endangered Species Act, because of scientific reports that the bears' icy habitat is melting due to global warming.
Hall said a decision is expected in January 2008. A "threatened" listing would bar the government from taking any action that jeopardizes the animal's existence, and might spur debate about tougher measures to cut the greenhouse gas emissions that spur global warming.
<snip>
Link to story
Personally I can see why the polar bear is a sensitive issue. I mean if its habitat is being destroyed by global warming, putting it on the endangered list might give some more political charge or power to global warming. It would be petty in my modest opinion to have this animal go extinct because of political tactics aimed at denying global warming, in part by the bush administration that has a track record of such behavior and a political body, the republicans, that I could imagine denying global warming even if the oceans were boiling.
So with that said, here is the debate question.
1)What logic do you find behind such memos.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
Edited to conform cited material with forum Rules - Jaime
1)What logic do you find behind such memos.
Easy- science has trumped the religion of the right in truth, and they don't like it one bit- kinda like when scientists prove beyond any doubt that a bible story is a myth- it can get you seriously killed in some circles- it is censorship of something that Bushco doesn't want you to hear.
BTW- personal note- these are Alaskans that got this memo- got alot of folks up here up in arms, with our libertarian bent.
They are being censored-plain and simple- from telling the truth. Alaska's ecology is in the procces of being irreversibly harmed in my lifetime- and it plain out torques me off. I think the Walrus will probably be extinct in my lifetime- the ice pack over shallow seas is how they raise thier pups- the ice has receded so far that mama walrus are leaving thier babies behind to die- because they can't find food now that the ice pack has moved so far off shore.
This is also what is starving the polar bear to death- thier food is going extinct, and quickly.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
No
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
Because this is the science that very well may lead to changes we need to make in order to not destroy our nest.
Anyway- I think it should be illegal to suppress science in this manner- possibly even needing an amendment to make sure that the politics of ignorance don't trump the science of the genius.
Pretty much, Americans enjoy, revel and celebrate ignorance and stupidity and violence over careful thought, reflection and wisdom.
This is a glaring example of this problem with our society.
Easy- science has trumped the religion of the right in truth, and they don't like it one bit- kinda like when scientists prove beyond any doubt that a bible story is a myth- it can get you seriously killed in some circles- it is censorship of something that Bushco doesn't want you to hear.
BTW- personal note- these are Alaskans that got this memo- got alot of folks up here up in arms, with our libertarian bent.
They are being censored-plain and simple- from telling the truth. Alaska's ecology is in the procces of being irreversibly harmed in my lifetime- and it plain out torques me off. I think the Walrus will probably be extinct in my lifetime- the ice pack over shallow seas is how they raise thier pups- the ice has receded so far that mama walrus are leaving thier babies behind to die- because they can't find food now that the ice pack has moved so far off shore.
This is also what is starving the polar bear to death- thier food is going extinct, and quickly.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
No
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
Because this is the science that very well may lead to changes we need to make in order to not destroy our nest.
Anyway- I think it should be illegal to suppress science in this manner- possibly even needing an amendment to make sure that the politics of ignorance don't trump the science of the genius.
Pretty much, Americans enjoy, revel and celebrate ignorance and stupidity and violence over careful thought, reflection and wisdom.
This is a glaring example of this problem with our society.
1)What logic do you find behind such memos.
The one basis for this sort of thing that I can think of is to make sure that folks who are employed by the government do not make official statements that are in conflict with the government's position. To some extent, that's reasonable enough. If Professor Smith works for a government agency and makes a statement at an formal meeting, it might be seen that her opinions reflect those of the government.
Beyond that, this does seem to be too restrictive a policy. Let's look at the example offered by the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in defense of this policy.
It's difficult for me to see how one could have a meaningful scientific discussion about this topic without being able to discuss the climate.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
Only in a very limited way, as I will explain.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
It would be reasonable for scientists directly employed by the government to be asked to avoid offering opinions concerning government policy which conflict with those of their employers.
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
It is not reasonable to ask these scientists to avoid offering scientific opinions.
In other words, at a formal meeting, Professor Smith might be asked not to say "the administration should declare the polar bear an endangered species" if that contradicts government policy. (Of course, she could offer that opinion informally.) It is not reasonable to ask her to avoid offering her scientific opinion that "the polar bear is in danger of extinction due to climate change."
Scientists employed by the government should be seen as independent experts, hired for their skills. Their professional opinions should not be restricted.
The one basis for this sort of thing that I can think of is to make sure that folks who are employed by the government do not make official statements that are in conflict with the government's position. To some extent, that's reasonable enough. If Professor Smith works for a government agency and makes a statement at an formal meeting, it might be seen that her opinions reflect those of the government.
Beyond that, this does seem to be too restrictive a policy. Let's look at the example offered by the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in defense of this policy.
QUOTE
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
It's difficult for me to see how one could have a meaningful scientific discussion about this topic without being able to discuss the climate.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
Only in a very limited way, as I will explain.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
It would be reasonable for scientists directly employed by the government to be asked to avoid offering opinions concerning government policy which conflict with those of their employers.
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
It is not reasonable to ask these scientists to avoid offering scientific opinions.
In other words, at a formal meeting, Professor Smith might be asked not to say "the administration should declare the polar bear an endangered species" if that contradicts government policy. (Of course, she could offer that opinion informally.) It is not reasonable to ask her to avoid offering her scientific opinion that "the polar bear is in danger of extinction due to climate change."
Scientists employed by the government should be seen as independent experts, hired for their skills. Their professional opinions should not be restricted.
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwolf @ Mar 10 2007, 04:59 AM) 
1)What logic do you find behind such memos.
The one basis for this sort of thing that I can think of is to make sure that folks who are employed by the government do not make official statements that are in conflict with the government's position. To some extent, that's reasonable enough. If Professor Smith works for a government agency and makes a statement at an formal meeting, it might be seen that her opinions reflect those of the government.
Beyond that, this does seem to be too restrictive a policy. Let's look at the example offered by the director of the Fish and Wildlife Service in defense of this policy.
QUOTE
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
It's difficult for me to see how one could have a meaningful scientific discussion about this topic without being able to discuss the climate.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
Only in a very limited way, as I will explain.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
It would be reasonable for scientists directly employed by the government to be asked to avoid offering opinions concerning government policy which conflict with those of their employers.
4)If you don’t support such actions, why not?
It is not reasonable to ask these scientists to avoid offering scientific opinions.
In other words, at a formal meeting, Professor Smith might be asked not to say "the administration should declare the polar bear an endangered species" if that contradicts government policy. (Of course, she could offer that opinion informally.) It is not reasonable to ask her to avoid offering her scientific opinion that "the polar bear is in danger of extinction due to climate change."
Scientists employed by the government should be seen as independent experts, hired for their skills. Their professional opinions should not be restricted.
So basically if you become a government scientist you waive your freedom of speech in certain areas? I mean is talking about polar bears going extinct because of global warming some case of national security, is it attacking someone verbally, I simply don’t understand. Its political activism on the right to hurt global warming and everything it touches because global warming is not republican friendly thusly why they go to such extents to basically blacklist what they can.
QUOTE
So basically if you become a government scientist you waive your freedom of speech in certain areas?
Well, yes; in areas other than science, when acting in an official capacity. I'm splitting hairs here, in an attempt to make as strong a case as possible for what I preceive as the "wrong" side of the issue. Believe me, I tend to be with the scientists on this one. I am only saying that scientists should not be making formal statements about policy. (In return, the government's policies should never have any effect on the scientific work of professionals.)
1)What logic do you find behind such memos.
The logic is explained in the article. If you're travelling on government business, on the government dime, representing the government, you limit yourself to the government line. Add in the matter explained regarding sticking to the schedules, and voila, policy makes sense.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
Yes.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
Its called "agency." Its also a matter of insuring that our government doesn't send conflicting signals. There is a reason why we have one President, not 3 or 5 or 9 or 100 or 535. One. One chief.
QUOTE
It's difficult for me to see how one could have a meaningful scientific discussion about this topic without being able to discuss the climate. I'm surprised that you can't see it. Instead of polar bears, consider this topic: "human and black bear interface in Jellystone Park." 
aha! Makes sense. How to keep Yogi out of the pikanikka baskets, and how to keep young Bobby Doofus out of Yogi's way. That's a "management on the ground" issue. Whether or not the climate is changing has zero impact on the subject, because the subject is concerned with NOW, not 10 or 20 or 100 years down the way. Climate change is far too "macro" of an issue for the guys and gals working to figure out how to better do their job in a "micro" realm. Simply put, its a matter of resources. What's the tradeoff? How much time can Ranger Rick put into getting up to speed on climate change, learning both sides of the arguments, get a handle on the potential impacts to his own area of responsibility? Does that time spent take away from tracking the polar bears, identifying immediate threats to them, working with Arctic developers to insure they don't inadvertently plan their Annual Polar Bear Plunge at a beach that polar bears actually frequent, etc. Tradeoffs.
The logic is explained in the article. If you're travelling on government business, on the government dime, representing the government, you limit yourself to the government line. Add in the matter explained regarding sticking to the schedules, and voila, policy makes sense.
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such actions.
Yes.
3)Going from number two, why do you support such actions?
Its called "agency." Its also a matter of insuring that our government doesn't send conflicting signals. There is a reason why we have one President, not 3 or 5 or 9 or 100 or 535. One. One chief.
***********************************************************
QUOTE
QUOTE(Victoria Silverwold)
QUOTE
For example, he said, one meeting was about "human and polar bear interface." Receding Arctic sea ice where polar bears live and the global climate change that likely played a role in the melting were not proper discussion topics, he said.
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
"That's not a climate change discussion," Hall said at a telephone briefing. "That's a management, on-the-ground type discussion."
It's difficult for me to see how one could have a meaningful scientific discussion about this topic without being able to discuss the climate.
aha! Makes sense. How to keep Yogi out of the pikanikka baskets, and how to keep young Bobby Doofus out of Yogi's way. That's a "management on the ground" issue. Whether or not the climate is changing has zero impact on the subject, because the subject is concerned with NOW, not 10 or 20 or 100 years down the way. Climate change is far too "macro" of an issue for the guys and gals working to figure out how to better do their job in a "micro" realm. Simply put, its a matter of resources. What's the tradeoff? How much time can Ranger Rick put into getting up to speed on climate change, learning both sides of the arguments, get a handle on the potential impacts to his own area of responsibility? Does that time spent take away from tracking the polar bears, identifying immediate threats to them, working with Arctic developers to insure they don't inadvertently plan their Annual Polar Bear Plunge at a beach that polar bears actually frequent, etc. Tradeoffs.
And you would be totally full of it BD- global warming has an impact here in Alaska RIGHT NOW, and is negatively impacting polar bear populations RIGHT NOW. It is affecting Walrus populations RIGHT NOW. This IS a management of the wildlife RIGHT NOW- it is not MACRO here- it is in our face every summer. Glaciers receding miles in my lifetime. Polar bears declining very quickly in number, and walrus calves being abandoned wholesale- your darned tootin' that global warming affects them RIGHT NOW.
In fact, you can't even intelligently discuss polar bear populations WITHOUT discussing global warming- they are one and the same right now.
The scientists we are sending are, well, are COMPLETELY up to speed with all modern journals and findings on global warming and wildlife management- that is what they do, day in, day out. The only guys going there that would be disussing this stuff are PHDs or Masters level wildlife management types. Very non-political and just good ol' fashioned geeky scientists that happen to do alot of camping up here, year around.
It is having immediate impact on fishing stocks here in Alaska, right here, right now.
These "guys and gals' ARE NOT "Ranger Rick" anymore than GW is a Rhodes scholar.
The guys and gals that are being sent to Siberia for this study (damn, almost sounds like off to Gulag when you put it that way
) -
I would say there is no conservative in this country, bar none, that could even come close to the expertise on this subject compared to the folks we sent over, bar none, period, end of discussion.
"polar bear plunge"- you do that around the polar bears- you will be part of the food chain at the same time.
In fact, I ENCOURAGE you to come and study that idea up close and personal as well, along with every other no-nothing that quips up about the damage done to my homeland is "no big deal"- I suggest the best way to keep the polar bear healthy at this time may be to send 99% of GOP voters off to study this- at least thier hot air on this subject would be curtailed, greatly.
It doesn't take rocket scientists up here to see the affects- you can see them, any reasonable human being that has lived here for more than 10 years or so, to really feel the effects- down in the south, you folks live far to far away from the problem, and have no idea what you are talking about, nor, do you have any connection to a place you are seeing killed by man's unchecked greed and lack of understanding about our impacts and this earth.
And you would be totally full of it BD- global warming has an impact here in Alaska RIGHT NOW, and is negatively impacting polar bear populations RIGHT NOW. It is affecting Walrus populations RIGHT NOW. This IS a management of the wildlife RIGHT NOW- it is not MACRO here- it is in our face every summer. Glaciers receding miles in my lifetime. Polar bears declining very quickly in number, and walrus calves being abandoned wholesale- your darned tootin' that global warming affects them RIGHT NOW.
In fact, you can't even intelligently discuss polar bear populations WITHOUT discussing global warming- they are one and the same right now.
The scientists we are sending are, well, are COMPLETELY up to speed with all modern journals and findings on global warming and wildlife management- that is what they do, day in, day out.
It is having immediate impact on fishing stocks here in Alaska, right here, right now.
These "guys and gals' ARE NOT "Ranger Rick" anymore than GW is a Rhodes scholar.
The guys and gals that are being sent to Siberia for this study (damn, almost sounds like off to Gulag when you put it that way ) -
I would say there is no conservative in this country, bar none, that could even come close to the expertise on this subject compared to the folks we sent over, bar none, period, end of discussion.
"polar bear plunge"- you do that around the polar bears- you will be part of the food chain at the same time.
In fact, I ENCOURAGE you to come and study that idea up close and personal as well, along with every other no-nothing that quips up about the damage done to my homeland is "no big deal"- I suggest the best way to keep the polar bear healthy at this time may be to send 99% of GOP voters off to study this- at least thier hot air on this subject would be curtailed, greatly.
It doesn't take rocket scientists up here to see the affects- you can see them, any reasonable human being that has lived here for more than 10 years or so, to really feel the effects- down in the south, you folks live far to far away from the problem, and have no idea what you are talking about, nor, do you have any connection to a place you are seeing killed by man's unchecked greed and lack of understanding about our impacts and this earth.
You can't even begin to talk about the polar bears decline and changing of behaviors without discussing global warming's impact upon that decline- that fact has no argument against it worth merit at all.
It is because, well, the GW regime and thier corporate suits don't like the truth being bantied about too much.
In fact, you can't even intelligently discuss polar bear populations WITHOUT discussing global warming- they are one and the same right now.
The scientists we are sending are, well, are COMPLETELY up to speed with all modern journals and findings on global warming and wildlife management- that is what they do, day in, day out. The only guys going there that would be disussing this stuff are PHDs or Masters level wildlife management types. Very non-political and just good ol' fashioned geeky scientists that happen to do alot of camping up here, year around.
It is having immediate impact on fishing stocks here in Alaska, right here, right now.
These "guys and gals' ARE NOT "Ranger Rick" anymore than GW is a Rhodes scholar.
The guys and gals that are being sent to Siberia for this study (damn, almost sounds like off to Gulag when you put it that way
) - I would say there is no conservative in this country, bar none, that could even come close to the expertise on this subject compared to the folks we sent over, bar none, period, end of discussion.
"polar bear plunge"- you do that around the polar bears- you will be part of the food chain at the same time.
In fact, I ENCOURAGE you to come and study that idea up close and personal as well, along with every other no-nothing that quips up about the damage done to my homeland is "no big deal"- I suggest the best way to keep the polar bear healthy at this time may be to send 99% of GOP voters off to study this- at least thier hot air on this subject would be curtailed, greatly.
It doesn't take rocket scientists up here to see the affects- you can see them, any reasonable human being that has lived here for more than 10 years or so, to really feel the effects- down in the south, you folks live far to far away from the problem, and have no idea what you are talking about, nor, do you have any connection to a place you are seeing killed by man's unchecked greed and lack of understanding about our impacts and this earth.
And you would be totally full of it BD- global warming has an impact here in Alaska RIGHT NOW, and is negatively impacting polar bear populations RIGHT NOW. It is affecting Walrus populations RIGHT NOW. This IS a management of the wildlife RIGHT NOW- it is not MACRO here- it is in our face every summer. Glaciers receding miles in my lifetime. Polar bears declining very quickly in number, and walrus calves being abandoned wholesale- your darned tootin' that global warming affects them RIGHT NOW.
In fact, you can't even intelligently discuss polar bear populations WITHOUT discussing global warming- they are one and the same right now.
The scientists we are sending are, well, are COMPLETELY up to speed with all modern journals and findings on global warming and wildlife management- that is what they do, day in, day out.
It is having immediate impact on fishing stocks here in Alaska, right here, right now.
These "guys and gals' ARE NOT "Ranger Rick" anymore than GW is a Rhodes scholar.
The guys and gals that are being sent to Siberia for this study (damn, almost sounds like off to Gulag when you put it that way
) - I would say there is no conservative in this country, bar none, that could even come close to the expertise on this subject compared to the folks we sent over, bar none, period, end of discussion.
"polar bear plunge"- you do that around the polar bears- you will be part of the food chain at the same time.
In fact, I ENCOURAGE you to come and study that idea up close and personal as well, along with every other no-nothing that quips up about the damage done to my homeland is "no big deal"- I suggest the best way to keep the polar bear healthy at this time may be to send 99% of GOP voters off to study this- at least thier hot air on this subject would be curtailed, greatly.
It doesn't take rocket scientists up here to see the affects- you can see them, any reasonable human being that has lived here for more than 10 years or so, to really feel the effects- down in the south, you folks live far to far away from the problem, and have no idea what you are talking about, nor, do you have any connection to a place you are seeing killed by man's unchecked greed and lack of understanding about our impacts and this earth.
You can't even begin to talk about the polar bears decline and changing of behaviors without discussing global warming's impact upon that decline- that fact has no argument against it worth merit at all.
It is because, well, the GW regime and thier corporate suits don't like the truth being bantied about too much.
QUOTE
So with that said, here is the debate question.
1)What logic do you find behind such memos
.1)What logic do you find behind such memos
I agree with Victoria. The objective is to avoid confusion about what the governments position is. It did not say that one could not discuss the consequences on Polar Bares of shrinking ice did it?
QUOTE
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such a
ctions.Yes. There is no job, company ot government, where you can say anything you like. Never has been and never will be.
Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 12 2007, 09:18 PM)
QUOTE
So with that said, here is the debate question.
1)What logic do you find behind such memos
.1)What logic do you find behind such memos
I agree with Victoria. The objective is to avoid confusion about what the governments position is. It did not say that one could not discuss the consequences on Polar Bares of shrinking ice did it?
QUOTE
2)Going from your answer to question one, do you support such a
ctions.Yes. There is no job, company ot government, where you can say anything you like. Never has been and never will be.
Hall defended the policy laid out in the memos, saying it was meant to keep scientists from straying from a set agenda at meetings in countries like Russia, Norway and Canada.
So a set agenda for specific meetings, that does not cover the scope or entirety of the censorship. Plus what about when other scientific groups do talk about it, with fact, but government scientists cant? I don’t think that looks to good, but hey, its not like such people don’t take expensive trips or anything on the backs of sweat shop workers, must be some of that neo con greatness the world has come to know, and most of the American public and its government.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
QUOTE
Gordo
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
Maybe the idea was to stay on topic rather than just throw up our hands and so “oh well its all GW”
Hey maybe we can save some Polar Bears with the 400 Billion we DON”T send uselessly trying to stop something we are not sure the cause of and cannot stop in any case. Works for me….
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE
Gordo
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
Maybe the idea was to stay on topic rather than just throw up our hands and so “oh well its all GW”
Hey maybe we can save some Polar Bears with the 400 Billion we DON”T send uselessly trying to stop something we are not sure the cause of and cannot stop in any case. Works for me….
Well you agreed with the memo on the basis of the meetings with say Russia, or Canada. I stated that the memos scope goes far beyond this and why? More so when compared to the idea that other scientific groups don’t do that? Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming.
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 12 2007, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE
Gordo
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
Maybe the idea was to stay on topic rather than just throw up our hands and so “oh well its all GW”
Hey maybe we can save some Polar Bears with the 400 Billion we DON”T send uselessly trying to stop something we are not sure the cause of and cannot stop in any case. Works for me….
Well you agreed with the memo on the basis of the meetings with say Russia, or Canada. I stated that the memos scope goes far beyond this and why? More so when compared to the idea that other scientific groups don’t do that? Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming.
QUOTE
Gordo . Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming
You seem to be missing the point that GW is not just a scientific issue it is a political issue and that is why idiots like AL GORE are pushing it so hard. So if you allow every person with a “science degree” to make political statements because they disagree with the Administration that might not be a good thing. Get it.
And you still duck the big question – It makes no difference.
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 12 2007, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE
Gordo
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
Maybe the idea was to stay on topic rather than just throw up our hands and so “oh well its all GW”
Hey maybe we can save some Polar Bears with the 400 Billion we DON”T send uselessly trying to stop something we are not sure the cause of and cannot stop in any case. Works for me….
Well you agreed with the memo on the basis of the meetings with say Russia, or Canada. I stated that the memos scope goes far beyond this and why? More so when compared to the idea that other scientific groups don’t do that? Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming.
QUOTE
Gordo . Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming
You seem to be missing the point that GW is not just a scientific issue it is a political issue and that is why idiots like AL GORE are pushing it so hard. So if you allow every person with a “science degree” to make political statements because they disagree with the Administration that might not be a good thing. Get it.
And you still duck the big question – It makes no difference.
How am I doing that when its politicians doing political actions against scientists? I mean we are talking about politicians using powers that exist politically to control what a scientist can say and not say? What does this have to do with Al Gore, that’s right nothing because these are scientists that are being told not to talk about something by using some excuse that does not even apply by visibility to everything else? It would be fine I guess if they were told not to talk about such in direct context to such meetings because of the politics involved, but still that would be agreeing with me and not you, its the bush admin making it political with stunts like this not the scientists.
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 12 2007, 10:41 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 02:26 AM)
QUOTE(gordo @ Mar 12 2007, 10:01 PM)
QUOTE(Ted @ Mar 13 2007, 01:57 AM)
QUOTE
Gordo
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
There really is no logical reason for this. Polar bears are a sensitive topic in regards to global warming, and of course documentation exists to support as to why. But if you are an administration that’s against global warming it would be easier to do such if you could use some plausible deniability I would think, thus in my mind is why such exists, I mean its not the first time we hear about such abuses really in relation to global warming topics.
Maybe the idea was to stay on topic rather than just throw up our hands and so “oh well its all GW”
Hey maybe we can save some Polar Bears with the 400 Billion we DON”T send uselessly trying to stop something we are not sure the cause of and cannot stop in any case. Works for me….
Well you agreed with the memo on the basis of the meetings with say Russia, or Canada. I stated that the memos scope goes far beyond this and why? More so when compared to the idea that other scientific groups don’t do that? Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming.
QUOTE
Gordo . Yes, who else would be doing this but GW, like with the other acts that deal with distorting or attempting basically to blacklist governmental scientific research on global warming
You seem to be missing the point that GW is not just a scientific issue it is a political issue and that is why idiots like AL GORE are pushing it so hard. So if you allow every person with a “science degree” to make political statements because they disagree with the Administration that might not be a good thing. Get it.
And you still duck the big question – It makes no difference.
How am I doing that when its politicians doing political actions against scientists? I mean we are talking about politicians using powers that exist politically to control what a scientist can say and not say? What does this have to do with Al Gore, that’s right nothing because these are scientists that are being told not to talk about something by using some excuse that does not even apply by visibility to everything else? It would be fine I guess if they were told not to talk about such in direct context to such meetings because of the politics involved, but still that would be agreeing with me and not you, its the bush admin making it political with stunts like this not the scientists.
Al Bush is saying is when you speak about it remember the government position and don’t offer “opinions” of your own. No job in the world for any company in the world is different. And see below – apparently Al’s lying has him in hot water with both sides of the debate
Several experts on climate change, including both proponents and skeptics of the man-made global warming theory, question former Vice President Al Gore's assertions in his Academy Award-winning documentary film "An Inconvenient Truth."
"I don't want to pick on Al Gore," said Don J. Easterbrook, a geologist at Western Washington University, told an annual meeting of the Geological Society of America, according to a report in The New York Times. "But there are a lot of inaccuracies in the statements we are seeing, and we have to temper that with real data."
In the slideshow presentation that is the central part of "An Inconvenient Truth," Gore lays out what most researchers consider to be the worst-case scenario for global warming, with total melting of polar ice caps, a sea-level rise of 20 feet and catastrophic flooding and droughts.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,258462,00.html
Current scientific consensus holds that human industrial activity has sharply increased the amounts of carbon dioxide and other "greenhouse gases" in the atmosphere, and that average temperatures worldwide will rise for at least the next century — but at a much more gradual rate than that depicted in "An Inconvenient Truth."
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.