"'Don't discuss polar bears": Bush Admin.'s Memo to Scientists

Remove all ads!

I don't know what to think about this.

When I read it about the newspaper, I was shocked. But perhaps mainly because of a misunderstanding. I thought that USA government had denied academic scientist to speak about global warming.

So my reaction was just - USA, denying freedom of speech That's just...I mean...freedom of speech for pete's sakes!

Good points though JSBB & T2Bruno. Nevertheless, it's questionable to apply policies concerning military research and corporate research into global warming. How exactly keeping secrets on technological advances could be compared to research on global warming. Even if it would apply to such far reaching issues it would be extremely unethical, because the benefit of speaking freely on topics like these would be far greater than the benefits of silencing the researchers.

Then there's the thing that this is yet again one stupendous PR stunt in the line of many other of its like by the Bush administration. I hear the ratings of mr. Bush soaring, not to mention the popularity of his administration in the eyes of other countries...

 

As requested by T2B:

I'm really not sure where to begin. If the question is "Are all scientists impartial?" then the answer clearly is no. In fact, the opposite is true - most scientist do research on work that interests them, and as such come in with some level of personal bias. But I think the question is more along the lines of, "Is it OK to censor scientists from speaking against their employers position on a given topic?" And the answer to that is "yes" if it is part of the contract you signed when you agreed to work there.

I, too, work for the government in a scientific capacity. I am not allowed to talk about anything and everything I like. In fact, I have a security clearance that effectively limits my saying anything to people beyond the circle of "need to know". But that happens everywhere. Companies that do research also tend to have engineers to put the research into practice. Their knowledge is called "trade secrets" and it is completely acceptable to limit what they learn to other people within the company.

Overall, it is rare for research to be completely without bias. Whether you work for the government, a private company, a private organization, or academia, you can't diss the people paying for your research grant. That much seems painfully obvious. The people with the most leeway on this are probably in academia, as it is unlikely for whatever they happen to be researching is in conflict with the ethos of the university.

The best way to get around all of it is to work for an organization with view's similar to yours. For example, if you are a climatologist working for the World Wildlife Foundation, it's probably perfectly OK to publish research advocating the position of doing something to stop the effects of global warming. About the best I can say is if you disagree with a particular company/government/organization's position on a scientific topic, don't go to work for them.

 

Absolutely, and I would not have it any other way. And as for the "being fired" part. And I'll tell you exactly what I tell them: "Hopefully my next employer will treat me better."

 

Well, think the positive side; you're not living in US, so you can still affect your own government. Let the suckers choke to their own bile

More seriously, though, I think it is sad too. It almost seems like they have degenerated back to the "Wild West" times when anything and everything goes as long as you hold a gun. And if you don't, everyone is at your throat.

Why does it seem like all the big countries (Russia, US, China) are more or less controlled by single-party groups...

 

Heh, maybe the Lord settles things for the believers and raptures them before everything goes down the drain. Can't wait for armageddon myself. Now that is sarcastic, but I heared some self-described evangelicals speak in such terms: 'The Lord will not leave his flock alone!' (Check Jewish post-WW-II theodicy for scepticsm)

Point is that, even if global warming does occur naturally, man's input is most likely exacerbating it. Simply doing nothing under the claim: 'Not all the science is yet in' is irresponsible. Science has identified many factors that contribute to global warming. And it has also determined that mankind, in the developed nations especially, contributes to the phenomenon.

Think of L.A.'s smog. There has always been dust in the air, but that's not a reason not to use a catalysator in your car or dust filters in factories or power plants.

[ March 12, 2007, 21:59: Message edited by: Ragusa ]

 

You have to remember, these were the same groups and scientists that thirty years ago were scaring the snot out of everybody by telling us we were heading for an ice age.

I fully expect to come back to SP in thirty years, search the archives, and post a big "I told you they were full of ****" message.

 

I'm not suggesting any such thing, I'm suggesting that it has nothing to do with Man and has everything to do with increased solar activity.

 

Probably them included, and then the entire scientific community of the world with the exception of the United States, and as far as I know even there it's rapidly gaining ground. The more research is done the larger the mountain of evidence has grown. The odds of for you being right seem very low.

 

Well a quick Google search led me to

Space.com

World Climate Report.com

The Washington Times

Etcetera. Note I'm sure that for every article I post, someone can also post an article saying that it is Man's fault. I am very troubled that some articles are taken as gospel and others are discredited as crap.

My personal favorite additions to the argument are from National Geographic that Mars is warming up too.


Now, I'm positive that if someone was so inclined they could spend hours/days figuring out who wrote the articles, what there agenda is, blah blah blah.

My point is, why do we blindly take the opinion of Al Gore and his cadre of talking heads and discredit everyone else? I don't see anything even close to a "consensus of opinion"

It doesn't make sense to me. I may not have to wait 30 years as the guy quoted in National Geographic is predicting we will have substantial cooling in the next 15-20 years. Good Grief.

 

You don't see a consensus? So I take it you've never heard of the IPCC?

If you have, and that doesn't qualify as consensus, what would qualify as consensus, in your opinion?

 

I recently did some research on the theory that global warming is caused by change in the sun's temperature. Ardent consevatives have been using this argument alot lately, so I figured it must be new research. Not only is this research rather old, but the studies I found always made the explicit point that change in the sun temperature is only one of many factors that influence climate, not an alternative model for global warming. My guess is that conservative think tanks are doing a good job of misinterpreting this research and pushing it out to the pubic. I suggest conservatives who cling this argument actually look up the research they cite instead of repeating the line of their favorite conservative radio host.

Snook, I agree with your point about Al Gore's political agenda. It irked me when he described global warming as a "fact" and misrepresented a sampling of the scientific literature. He's a politician and spinning is what politiicians do. However, when you get past political agendas, the evidence is overwhelming that humans contribute at least moderately to global warming. It really speaks to the power of politics that this is still a debated issue.

[ March 13, 2007, 00:40: Message edited by: ion ]

 

In that case you really must be blind. Here's a link you might want to take a look at.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Kyoto_Protocol_participation_map_2005.png

If you read the article about Kyoto protocol in Wikipedia you'll notice that even Australia fully acknowledges global warming but simply feels that the cuts would be too costly right now. So there is a consensus everywhere else but the United States and some minor countries.

Also, Al Gores video, while a fine piece of propaganda work is filled with factual flaws and errors. Which unfortunaetly will be enough for some to deny the influence of man in this phenomenon and all the evidence supporting it.

 

I have two problems with this - The first is obvious to most everyone who follows American politics: Al Gore is not a politician. He has not been one since 2000 when he ran successfully for president but was cheated by the Supreme Court. Gore is a former politician who became a college prof and is now just a private citizen who is concerned about the environment, which brings up the second problem: What is this "agenda" you are complaining about?

To be sure, private citizens can have a "political agenda" but I was looking for something a little more than the "spin" that you presented, which never explained Gore's "agenda" in any meaningful way. If Gore announces that he is running for office again, then that would change things a great deal, since much could be read into his pursuit for the preservation of the natural environment. Fair or unfair such accusations regarding a political agenda would overshadow a meaningful debate over the issue itself.

As much as I would like to see Gore run for prez, since I also believe he would be a good one, he has chosen (for the moment, at least) to keep the focus on the issue of global warming itself, rather than his own politcal aspirations. As unfair as that is, it is the political reality we live under.

 

Snook's position is that climate change is entirely independant of human influence. At this point, that is a radical position.

The better debate is 1)exctly how much of an influence humans have, 2)what will be the repercussions of not changing our behavior, 3) what are the drawbacks of major behavior change (economic, etc.), and 4) considering these factors, when is it worth making changes to avoid future problems?