Hansen: White House ‘Reviews And Edits’ All Testimony By Government Scientists
Hansen: White House ‘Reviews And Edits’ All Testimony By Government Scientists
In 2006, the government’s top global warming researcher, James Hansen, revealed the government’s efforts to muzzle him from speaking out about climate change. NASA political appointees reviewed all his lectures, papers, and requests for interviews from journalists.
In a new e-mail, Hansen reveals that the censoring is not only happening to him, but to all government scientists. He writes that the White House Office of Management and Budget reviews all scientific testimony to make sure that it’s “consistent with the President’s budget”:
Do you know that before a government scientist testifies to Congress his/her testimony is typically reviewed and edited by the White House Office of Management and Budget? When I asked for a justification, I was told that a government scientist’s testimony “needs to be consistent with the President’s budget”.
Huh? There have never been any budget numbers in my testimony or in the testimony of most scientists. And OMB’s editing of the scientific content is invariably designed to make the testimony fit better with the position of the political party in power (yes, it is a bi-partisan problem). Where is it stated or implied in the Constitution that the Executive Branch should have such authority? (Actually, does the Constitution not vest control of the purse strings to Congress?) Why does not Congress get incensed about this and fight back?
In October, Dr. Julie Gerberding, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, had her congressional testimony on the “Human Impacts of Global Warming” “eviscerated” by the OMB. The final version had almost no references to the impacts of global warming.
In Jan. 2007, a survey found that 46 percent of government scientists “personally experienced pressure to eliminate the words ‘climate change,’ ‘global warming,’ or other similar terms from a variety of communications.”
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog Roll
This should bring out the trollies…
January 28th, 2008 at 11:14 amI expect nothing else from this administration.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:18 ami actually had hopes that his story, as covered on CBS a couple of weeks ago, would bring about even more coverage…
January 28th, 2008 at 11:18 amalas…
This is a strategy employed by both the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany: all communications must adhere to the party line. The real truth cannot be allowed to be heard. The US is no longer a free country.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:20 amThanks for posting this. We were hearing isolated versions but this is policy covering all scientists.
I hope we learn a lot more about this especially the OMB angle.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:22 amDo these incompetent , moronic and dishonest losers in the Chimpy administration believe that trying to silence others telling scientific fact/truth , is going to produce some sort of positive result(s) ?
Stifling truth is as un-American as anyone can be ; congrats Shrub administration……………
January 28th, 2008 at 11:23 amThis should bring out the trollies…
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 11:14 am
re trolls:
http://atrios.blogspot.com/2008_01_27_archive.html#3984599913399738086
January 28th, 2008 at 11:27 amHow Lysenkotastic.
As a scientist, I’m personally offended.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:28 amThanks for that link, joe cantwell… but does this mean you’re off the Whack-A-Trollâ„¢ pro tour?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:31 am…and in turn, I filter all bushco comments with a lie detector..935,936,937..
January 28th, 2008 at 11:32 amRepublican epistemology (and three-year-old ‘logic’):
“If I can’t see you, you’re not there.”
Peek-a-boooo!!!
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 11:32 amI wonder if we will see many more reports like this once there is a Democratic President and a clear Democratic majority in Congress and the scientific community does not fear for the loss of their research funding because they did not toe the line with the neocons.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:33 amResponse to 12: This has always been a problem within the government scientific community. However, as with most bad conduct, this administration raises it to a new high. This is not the isolated case on one or two highly charged political issues involving science. The Bush administration has undertaken to develop a state science. What really should disturb us is the willingness of a large section of our population to accept this conduct.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:38 amComment by joe cantwell — January 28, 2008 @ 11:27 am
Nice one, Joe. I’ll keep that in mind. :-)
January 28th, 2008 at 11:39 amI guess HillaryProgress thinks it unimportant to make any reference to Barack Obama’s ROUT this Saturday of the Clintons(might as well call it like it is-a co-campaign for a co-presidency), the astounding op-ed by Caroline Kennedy in the New York Times calling Barack the JFK of our times, or the HUGE endorsement of Ted Kennedy for Barack today…
January 28th, 2008 at 11:43 amI guess it is true what they say, the Clintons really will DA ANYTHING and SAY ANYTHING to win, even if it means HillaryProgress says nothing at all.
And no, I am not a “troll” trying to throw this off topic, just a Democrat pointing out a valid observation.
Don’t you just hate it when reality ruins a good story? Or a collection of lies?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 amIt really sucks when the educated and intelligent become an oppressed minority.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 amAs a scientist, I’m personally offended.
Comment by PeterW — January 28, 2008 @ 11:28 am
Thats the exact first thing I thought too. Shameful too put it lightly.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 amI wonder if we will see many more reports like this once there is a Democratic President and a clear Democratic majority in Congress and the scientific community does not fear for the loss of their research funding because they did not toe the line with the neocons.
Comment by PatrioticLiberalChristian — January 28, 2008 @ 11:33 am
I wish I could be that optimistic. But Democrats, like all politicians, are only as open-minded as the corporations who fund their campaigns. I’d like to think a change in party will allow science to drive policy, rather than the other way around, but I can’t help being cynical. One only need look to Senators Byrd and Rockefeller to see that democrats are quite capable of being bought off by the industries who are ravaging the environment.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:45 amAnd no, I am not a “troll†trying to throw this off topic, just a Democrat pointing out a valid observation.
Comment by whiteyfresh — January 28, 2008 @ 11:43 am
A very valid observation, whitey. You can be sure if Huckabee (or some other Repub bozo) slam-dunked all the Repub candidates in SC, it would be a story on TP.
I hope things are going well for you, whitey! :-)
January 28th, 2008 at 11:47 amIt really sucks when the educated and intelligent become an oppressed minority.
Comment by bernard quatermass — January 28, 2008 @ 11:45 am
SOP for fascist regimes, though.
From Dr. Lawrence Britt’s Fourteen Defining Characteristics of Fascism:
Number 11: Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts – Fascist nations tend to promote and tolerate open hostility to higher education, and academia. It is not uncommon for professors and other academics to be censored or even arrested. Free expression in the arts and letters is openly attacked.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:48 amWhy is this not surprising?… maybe the scandal fatigue is getting to me again.
Mr. Purple
January 28th, 2008 at 11:49 amSOP for fascist regimes, though.
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 11:48 am
This can not be repeated enough.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:51 amDemocrats, like all politicians, are only as open-minded as the corporations who fund their campaigns.
Comment by toasterhead — January 28, 2008 @ 11:45 am
Sadly, I think you’re right, toasterhead. But the key element that favors Democrats in this equation is that they are more prone to rely on actual scientific inquiry to drive their policy, rather than theistic dogma.
That alone should account for a significant loosening of the governmental leash.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:52 amComment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 11:31 am
there’s been some serious discussion about trolls lately.
for example there’s a new troll policy over at newshounds.
i think nh’s idea is a good one for keeping things on point but with a special thread for free style debate and troll whacking.
check it out. we can have our trolls and beat them too!
(sorry for being ot)
January 28th, 2008 at 11:52 amtoasterhead, I try to remain optimistic but, as my “I wonder” beginning suggests, I have my fair share of cynicism and skepticism. I guess it would be better if I started with “I want”.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:53 amYou only have to hear one argument from a Neocon (or whatever these asshats call themselves) regarding the “liberal, greenies manufacturing the threat of global warming to gain political advantage,” to know that these folks are seriously deranged.
Just trying to hasten rapture, I guess.
January 28th, 2008 at 11:55 amBush has enviscerated science, diplomacy, security and good will.
Hansen was just one of the first to speak out; others will follow.
Pre-Iraq invasion intel was just one of hundreds, if not thousands of lies released to America’s public.
They do it the same way everytime, & FISA just happens to be on the front burner this week.
I ask again, will we hear any boo’s during the SOTU address?
January 28th, 2008 at 11:56 amI guess HillaryProgress thinks it unimportant to make any reference to Barack Obama’s ROUT this Saturday of the Clintons….
Comment by whiteyfresh — January 28, 2008 @ 11:43 am
um,
http://thinkprogress.org/2008/01/26/obama-wins-south-carolina/#comments
January 28th, 2008 at 12:01 pmHere’s how the White House deals with testimonies they dont like. Its the original written testimony by Dr Gerberding on the health impacts of climate change.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=562db56c-a00d-47c1-bbf0-a5b380b0e736
Of 13 pages 7 1/2 pages are censored. The central points in the testimony describing the serious health risks of climate change were completly deleted
January 28th, 2008 at 12:06 pmI watched a show last night (Naked Science on NatGeo) about the ice caps melting over Greenland and Antarctica. It said if the trend is not slowed, all the ice will melt potentially by as soon as 2050 (originally they thought 2100 but satellite photos have showed the ice melting at a faster rate than even they thought) and if that happens the human population of the planet will die.
The massive amounts of ice reflect the suns heat back up to the atmosphere keeping the planet cool. When the ice is changed to water, the darkness of the water absorbs the suns heat and creates more heat on the surface of the planet. Rising oceans (as much as 25′ globally will wipe out many islands and parts of large land masses and weather will become extremely harsh.
It’s the planet’s way of purging the virus that has infected it: us.
They discussed a point of no return where no matter what we do that melting will not stop. They don’t think we’re there yet but it is fast approaching.
All I can say is that I am thrilled that I never had kids. I can only imagine what our world will be between climate change, nuclear war (with the end of the world people egging it on), and many of the people who inherit the earth these days ignoring the earth that provides EVERYTHING for us.
Hey trolls, have at it and attack me at will. Attack anyone who says anything about climate change. Or war. Or your darling of a president and this rogue administration. I’m not the only one losing out – human civilization is.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:25 pmComment by dim wit — January 28, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Oops. Heh. I guess you can tell I was not paying attention this weekend. :|
January 28th, 2008 at 12:26 pmOh, I forgot to mention (for those who can’t add A and B), global warming will create serious droughts which affect plant life which affects the ability to eat. Serious droughts are already in many places in the world and now in the US (last I heard, parts of North Carolina had something like DAYS of drinking water on hand for its populace and Atlanta wasn’t far behind).
Now imagine that across the world not just America (which is where most Americans focus). This isn’t a NIMBY deal. It’s already in our back yards.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:31 pmBush sez: Science, What Science? We Ain’t Got No Stinking Science.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:32 pmIt’s very possible that the planet is warming and that man’s activities play a significant role. But, if you have ever wondered why so many are still skeptical, please read this link and at least consider the possibility there is still a place for debate.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
There is not still a place for debate over the general scientific consensus on global climate change. While there is still room for debate over the specifics of climate change, such as how global climate change will effect hurricanes and cyclones, the debate over the general scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming is indeed over.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:37 pmI don’t have a problem with debate as long as people consider that debating without doing at the same time is just stupid. There’s pollution. There’s greater amounts of Co2 in the air. These are facts. Why not try to reverse or slow that now? Why debate and debate and talk and argue. There are facts that we have impacted the planet.
Let’s for a moment assume that it is hugely overblown. what is the downside to taking action now?
What if it’s NOT overblown?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:42 pmComment by dim wit — January 28, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Oops. Heh. I guess you can tell I was not paying attention this weekend. :|
January 28th, 2008 at 12:43 pmComment by dim wit — January 28, 2008 @ 12:01 pm
Oops. Heh. I guess you can tell I was not paying attention this weekend. :|
Wow, that sure was a great detailed post. I personally like how the perfunctory mention of Barack’s “projected win” was followed up with an in depth story. Also, where was the link for the Kennedy endorsements?
Don’t worry my POPStar(TM), with a quick 2 sentence blurb, I bet a lot of people missed that. I’m doing fantabulous!! I hope you are as well!
January 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pm:D
there should be NO debate over the censorsing of government scientists.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:46 pmit’s wrong.
plain and simple!
#35 Captain Masticate sez:
[some crapola, citing SnoozeMax as some source of scientific authority....]
Yeah, there’s also plenty of room for ‘debate’ as to whether dinosaurs were all vegetarians and lived alongside man (until the Flood), and whether the universe is 6000 years old…..
You eedjits have been “debating” anything that gets in the way of your politics and/or ideology and/or religious delusions for quite enough time. Frankly, we’re getting sick of it.
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 12:47 pmWhy are “many” still skeptical? Because they do not want to take the responsibility for DOING something about global warming. Because they do not want to PAY for doing something about global warming. Because they do not CARE about global warming that does not affect them personally, right now, in their comfortably existence.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:48 pmLet’s for a moment assume that it is hugely overblown. what is the downside to taking action now?
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
The stock portfolios of dozens of oil company executives will be irrevocably damaged.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:49 pmBut, if you have ever wondered why so many are still skeptical, please read this link and at least consider the possibility there is still a place for debate.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 12:32 pm
Not when the skeptics are funded by the oil industry.
Like the “debate” on torture is only a debate according to torture supporters.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:50 pmNewsmax? I don’t think so, masturbastic.
January 28th, 2008 at 12:56 pmLet’s for a moment assume that it is hugely overblown. what is the downside to taking action now?
What if it’s NOT overblown?
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 28, 2008 @ 12:42 pm
what WILL we do with all those wind turbines, alternate fuel engines,
solar energy generating panels, to name only a few?
oh, and all the jobs created to supply that green energy???
how will we COPE?
January 28th, 2008 at 12:57 pmIf “peer review” is when your work is reviewed by your peers, what is it called when your work is reviewed by unqualified morons?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:01 pmThere is no such thing as a global warming skeptic. Anyone who pretends to be a skeptic is a denier or a liar. Global warming denialism is a cult-like behavior.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pmIf “peer review†is when your work is reviewed by your peers, what is it called when your work is reviewed by unqualified morons?
Comment by missmolly — January 28, 2008 @ 1:01 pm
Vetting.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:03 pmKaty, that’s the saddest thing. There is so much out there that could easily make small amounts of impact – a bunch of small things = one very large thing.
Short of the oil money and their unwillingness to give up those almost 80 billion in quarterly profits (uhm, that was for ONE oil company), just like everything else in our country; everything for a few to the destruction of the masses. But this time, they are the masses, too.
A little OOOPSY, we were wrong and the planet is going to kill us realization is all we need – and better sooner than later.
Alas, greed won’t allow it and thusly, we will be doomed beit now or a hundred years from now.
The planet will survive and regenerate itself. Life is growing again around Chernobyl. Plants have returned and so have the animals. The planet will regenerate itself. Whether human civilization will be part of that regrowth is up to us.
Shame that a few thoroughly rotted apples are going to ruin the bunches of humanity.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:06 pmKaty, that’s the saddest thing. There is so much out there that could easily make small amounts of impact – a bunch of small things = one very large thing.
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 28, 2008 @ 1:06 pm
Not sure I agree with this. The saddest thing is actually a retarded man who is crying and promising a broken egg that it will still be a chicken some day, and that they’ll play together in a field when it gets better. But I digress.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:11 pmToastehead: GROAN!! ;-)
January 28th, 2008 at 1:13 pmCan you believe their hasn’t even been a permit issued to build a new nuclear plant in the US in 3 decades???
http://www.planetark.org/dailynewsstory.cfm/newsid/44498/story.htm
WASHINGTON/NEW YORK – NRG Energy will file an application with regulators on Tuesday to build two new nuclear reactors in Texas, the first such request in the United States in 29 years, the company said Monday.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:17 pmToastehead: GROAN!! ;-)
Comment by Ms_Joanne — January 28, 2008 @ 1:13 pm
Sorry, I couldn’t resist dropping an Achewood reference. :)
But more to the point, I think the force that will ultimately make a difference in combating climate change is in the small things. It’s not going to be government. It’s certainly not going to be big business.
If tens of millions of people begin to make small changes in how they commute to work, how they light and heat their houses, what they eat, where their food comes from, and what they allow corporations to get away with, it will make a huge difference in reducing our nation’s carbon footprint. We can’t afford to wait for government to save us – it won’t.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:22 pmtoasterhead; what are the odds that the man telling a broken egg that it will still be a chicken one day is also a troll here at TP?
Perhaps Frank M?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:28 pmtoasterhead; what are the odds that the man telling a broken egg that it will still be a chicken one day is also a troll here at TP?
Perhaps Frank M?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 1:28 pm
Nah, that’s not like our trolls. Frank M and good_golly and Roger_Dodger would be telling the broken egg to go fix itself, but denying the egg health care coverage under SCHIP.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:37 pmThis has “communism” written all over it.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:41 pmFrank M and good_golly and Roger_Dodger would be telling the broken egg to go fix itself, but denying the egg health care coverage under SCHIP.
Comment by toasterhead — January 28, 2008 @ 1:37 pm
Dammit! You’re absolutely right.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:43 pmManastic: “would cause more problems than it would solve”? WTF are you talking about? These government regulations are “law” which Bush has chosen to overlook and/or appoint roosters to guard the hen house – give me a break here. What the hell was that last diatribe of yours in #57 anyway? Hopefully you get it; no one else does with those run on sentences and bullshit logic.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:44 pmWith the obvious surge toward a democrat winning the white house, the trolls are angry and are out inforce. How transparently predictable!
January 28th, 2008 at 1:45 pmEveryone is “for” the environment?? Hardly! The entire Bush administration has been permitting the polluters to have a field day by looking the other way. When Clinton left office, there were cases of fines, imprisonment or serious punishment left for the worst polluters so what does the Chimp do?? He comes in and closes the cases and then turns around and appoints the very offenders to do the policing. Now that’s “caring about the environment” Senor Manastic? Hardly.
By “cooking the science” in the same fashion as they “cook the books” (economically), they’re relegating this country to that of third world status. It’s happening right before our very eyes.
So, who “cares about the environment” then?? Perhaps some of us do but no one in this white house or GOP does – that’s obvious – and criminal.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:48 pmComment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 1:41 pm
I believe there are studies out that show the CO2 levels follow the temperature and not the other way around. I’ll try to find them for you.
There are ways to interpret data that way, sure, and there are situations in which CO2 follows temperature change. But there are very good, sound theories explaining why more CO2 in the atmosphere increases global temperature.
There is no doubt that we are pumping CO2 into the atmosphere. We know the sources: combustion of fossil fuels.
some are us are, however, concerned that unreasonalbe empowerment of beauracrats in dictating economic policy would cause more problems than it would solve.
WHO ELSE “dictates economic policy” but bureaucrats???
Who do you propose we allow to “dictate economic policy”????
Sheesh.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:49 pmPerhaps a better moniker for Herr Brush and his disastrous legacy would be “Chef-In-Chief” because this man has “cooked” everything from scientific data, lies surrounding an illegal occupation, and 911 (”the true story”). Chef In Chief, ’tis.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:50 pmAnd a more apt moniker for Cap’n Manastic might be Cap’n Masturbator because his speciality is “mental masturbation” with nothing to say.
January 28th, 2008 at 1:51 pmObviously, the fear of disobeying or disbelief in God was used as a powerful motivator to enforce Church edicts. In much the same way, I believe, the global warming debate is attempting to steam role environmentalism and limit debate with similar tactics. -Craptastic
Fear is Bush’s middle name. Tonight he’ll be using that tactic to try & convince an unbelieving American public that spies, terrorists and bogeymen are crawling under your bed. Fearmongering has taken on new levels with this bunch.
Bush = Fear
January 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pmEconomists.
Comment by CaptainMantastic — January 28, 2008 @ 1:51 pm
But as soon as an economist joins the government, he becomes a ‘bueraucrat”. Do you really think the people who generally set economic policy (in responsible administrations, at least) are not economists?
January 28th, 2008 at 1:58 pm#65 CaptainMantastic
Your link debunks your own argument. That page is dedicated to debunking all the standard “sceptic arguments”
January 28th, 2008 at 2:00 pmSo, Cap’n, your position is that the Greenhouse Effect is a crock?
I mean, since the relationship between greenhouse gases (of which carbon dioxide is one) and temperature change is the foundation for the principle, and you’ve proved with a link to “skepticalscience.org” that the establishment has it backwards, then everything is fine.
Let’s pump MORE greenhouse gases into the atmosphere!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:04 pmDo you really think the people who generally set economic policy (in responsible administrations, at least) are not economists?
Comment by ralph the wonder llama — January 28, 2008 @ 1:58 pm
uh… not in THIS administration…
(i bet you caught that yourself)
.
and that “big idea” was the most ridiculous piece of
January 28th, 2008 at 2:09 pmtwisted, spinning crappola i’ve read in a long time…
a very thinly veiled appeal to the athiest heathens…
w o w …
THIS WHITE HOUSE HAS ZERO CREDIBILITY IN THE US AND AROUND THE GLOBE! SO DOES CONGRESS!
January 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pmoh – the “big idea” came from a trooll, not ralph…
January 28th, 2008 at 2:24 pmsorry for the confusion, if any…
#57 Captain Masticate:
First, I believe there are studies out that show the CO2 levels follow the temperature and not the other way around. I’ll try to find them for you….
Let me help you, Doofus:
Here’s a start.
In simpler terms, it doesn’t matter much; if they’re both going up, our goose is still cooked. They do both tend to go up together (for various reasons), and in fact that is one of the more worrisome aspects; the positive feedback can lead to greater excursions or perhaps to a runaway climate change.
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 2:44 pm“Edited testimony” = Lies
January 28th, 2008 at 2:50 pm#57 Captain Mantastic:
I believe that throughout history, many people may have doubted the existence of God, but still promoted the idea, because they believed there wasn’t a downside. Pascal’s gambit. I believe the unintended consequence (and I don’t believe many here would deny) was that the Church was unreasonably empowered by the lack of skeptism from those that may have doubted, but said nothing.
Obviously, the fear of disobeying or disbelief in God was used as a powerful motivator to enforce Church edicts. In much the same way, I believe, the global warming debate is attempting to steam role environmentalism and limit debate with similar tactics.
Oh. Rrrrriiiigggghhhhtt. The Church was steamrolling all those sceptics with tons of peer-reviewed scientific papers on evidence for Gawd’s existence. Missed that; maybe I didn’t go to the right church, eh?
What’s amasing is that you losers want to stifle debate when you have the power to (see, e.g., the very subject of this thread, and see the Church’s actual efforts vis a vis Galileo, for example), but then insist on “debate”, “equal time”, “teach the controversy” and so on, when you’re losing. Imagine that.
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 2:51 pmHere is a post about this very thing.
http://www.its.org/node/5336
January 28th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
#79 Um, this thread is about government stifling scientists. And you are talking about open-mindedness now?
January 28th, 2008 at 3:41 pmDon’t engage the troll in a debate about global warming. There is nothing to debate. The general outline of the science has been settled.
The troll is a global warming denier, and therefore is either an imbecile or a liar or both. Anybody who is still a denier cannot be helped.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:44 pmThe Republicans will be all but destroyed in the coming election. The intimidation and repression of scientists will largely come to an end then.
January 28th, 2008 at 3:45 pm#79 Captain Mumblesalot:
Why so much concern about debate. Are proponents concerned the truth might escape?
Nice way to evade my other points. Why we care about “debate” is that you RW morons keep insisting on “debate” in lieu of any actual action so we can just sit on our duffs some more until things really go to hell in a handbasket. Same thing Dubya did with arsenic levels, same thing Reagan did with acid rain, anonanonanonanon…. Couple more years of “cheap” oil, and record profits from oil companies. And even better profits in years to come for the oil giants, as demand eclipses supply, and a market that has been encouraged by gummint to continue to rely on fossil fuels and is incapable of any quick changes to alternatives (and alternatives that are lacking because of lack of public commitment) allows the energy companies to hold up at gunpoint consumers desperate for energy with outrageous prices. Energy companies do not want demand curtailed, and they do not want alternatives (i.e. “competition”). Which is why they buy their own “science”….
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 4:20 pm#86 CaptainMasticates:
zuch. I may be skeptical,…
You misspelled “ignerrent and obtuse (not to mention, a troll)”. You are the “weakest link”. Goodbye.
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 5:16 pmSubtitute christ for global warming and consider how ‘progressive’ the logic is.
Substitute “a Nobel prize for peer-reviewed research establishing Christ’s existence” for Gore’s and the IPCC’s Nobel, and you’ll see how ‘progressive’ CaptainMasticate’s ‘logic’ is….. ;-)
Cheers,
January 28th, 2008 at 5:19 pmfor example there’s a new troll policy over at newshounds.
i think nh’s idea is a good one for keeping things on point but with a special thread for free style debate and troll whacking.
check it out. we can have our trolls and beat them too!
(sorry for being ot)
Comment by joe cantwell
The problem with Newshound’s policy is that they have to have someone there monitoring the board at all times. I don’t get that TP is monitoring what we post very often. I have seen a totally offensive post stay up all day long, even with people flagging it.
I am of the opinion that TP is vested in their trolls. They like the fact that the trolls drive up their numbers on posts on threads. Personally, I think they are making a big mistake. I have told several friends about TP and when they see how badly troll infested this site is, they say “no thanks, I’ll go somewhere else”. I think that TP is losing more visitors than they are gaining by allowing the trolls to rein supreme.
I no longer talk to trolls. I talk about them, but not to them. Try it, it feels good to know that I am not personally engaging them and giving them what they so desperately need, attention.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:39 pmI am confused as to why the captain wants us to “Subtitute christ for global warming and consider how ‘progressive’ the logic is.” Last I checked christ was not in a position to end all life on earth. But that’s what global climate change can and will do if we don’t get a handle on it. I don’t care of idiot trolls like CM don’t care if their grandchildren might die because they tried to prevent the world from doing something about climate change. But, I do care and I resent the hell out of people who think they can make those kind of decisions that affect MY family.
I also find it impossible to see how anyone could think we could pump tons of pollutants into our environment every day and have it NOT have any affect on our climate. That makes no sense at all. Perhaps CM and the other trolls would like us to pump those pollutants into their houses.
January 28th, 2008 at 5:44 pmIt’s time to investigate the GSO because its real sloppy allocation of funds ignores not only mention of global warming in so-called reports, BUT ALSO has not funded important scientific inquiry that could bring improvement, rapidly, to the General Welfare, of We The People which benefits Democrats: like open funded stem-cell research, holographic computer memory systems, green energy production, resource-conserving transportation vehicles, and non-carcinogenic food stuffs…and the list is ENDLESS!
February 16th, 2008 at 8:08 pmSorry!! It was late and the GSO (an airport in S. Carolina), is not responsible for ommissions concerning global warming; that may have been an EOP problem. Administrators may be swamped with the business of the EOP. Since 1939, during F.D.R.’s build up to war with Hitler, only about a dozen high and low EOP Presidential advisors have needed to submit for Congressional confirmation; but the entire staff of EOP includes as many as 1,800 full time workers, in ten entities. It’s hard to imagine how Congress can effectively oversee this bureaucratic monster! Sorry, again!!
February 18th, 2008 at 3:10 am