NationStates Jolt Archive

WASHINGTON - 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 on 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.

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.

Two accompanying memos were offered as examples of these kinds of assurance. Both included the line that the traveler "understands the administration's position on climate change, polar bears, and sea ice and will not be speaking on or responding to these issues."

"This administration has a long history of censoring speech and science on global warming," Eben Burnham-Snyder of the Natural Resources Defense Council said by telephone.

"Whenever we see an instance of the Bush administration restricting speech on global warming, it sends up a huge red flag that their commitment to the issue does not reflect their rhetoric," Burnham-Snyder said.

Source (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17524722/)

Bush Inc. is at it again. Why do they hate science and free speech so much? Apparently, the facts might get in the way of his corporate lackeys' profits. That, or he is planning to flood the north pole with polar bear refugees in an attempt to rid us of Santa, the bastion of socialism in the arctic circle.

Polar bears don't shit in the woods because they don't live in the woods. They live on frozen tundra.

Polar bears don't shit in the woods because they don't live in the woods. They live on frozen tundra.

I wonder if they bury it…

edit: damn timewarps making me double post

And their favorite food is penguins.:cool:

http://www.office365.co.uk/im/pim/580926.jpg

Polar bears don't shit in the woods because they don't live in the woods. They live on frozen tundra.

And their favorite food is penguins.:cool:

And their favorite food is penguins.:cool:
Only in the movie "Red Snow," the best penguin movie ever!

But seriously, wrong hemisphere.

Only in the movie "Red Snow," the best penguin movie ever!

But seriously, wrong hemisphere.

Hence the :cool: IRL I have covinced several people over the years that polar bears eat penguins. Why should I stop now?:D

And their favorite food is penguins.:cool:

Here I thought penguins lived on the other end of the Earth?

*lapses into confused state and might never emerge*

Here I thought penguins lived on the other end of the Earth?

*lapses into confused state and might never emerge*

See my previous post. I will now add you to the my count of victims.:D

I don't give two shits about polar bears, but I guess they are above the tree line, so I would say no.

See my previous post. I will now add you to the my count of victims.:D

Ahhhh. Continuation of the joke of shitting in the non-existent woods. Alright, nevermind.

Though we really need to do what we can to stop losing our polar bears. They make this planet a little less boring.

So, nobody actually read the article?
Not even a troll?

*Shakes fist at my stupid poll*

And their favorite food is penguins.:cool:

i thought pengiuins lived on the other side of the earth...


Or do Polar bears like the taste of penguins so much that they are willing to dig though the earth's core for them? :p

i thought pengiuins lived on the other side of the earth...


Or do Polar bears like the taste of penguins so much that they are willing to dig though the earth's core for them? :p

They have a teleporter, silly. :cool:

So, nobody actually read the article?
Not even a troll?

*Shakes fist at my stupid poll*
Oh I read it. Trouble is that a few photos of polar bears perched precariously atop tiny icebergs and other anecdotal evidence is hardly proof of anything. In fact, Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals says that they're on the rise as a result of not climate change but the efforts of conservationists, according to London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). But I guess he and others like him are just a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and paid industry hacks, right?

Also, considering how everyone, credible scientists included, who question the conventional wisdom of catastophic AGW usually end up getting dismissed or shouted down, it kind of makes you wonder if the self-righteous and self-appointed guardians of the planet (but not the people) are so pure and true. I'm not saying Bush is friendly to science, he doesn't appear to be, but neither are those that follow those same tactics for the opposite ends.

Politics should never get into science, should never influence it, no matter the side taken.

Real science follows the scientific method:
1. Observe some phenomenon in the universe
2. Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon
3. Test the validity of the hypothesis (e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data)
4. Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon

What all too often gets headlines follows the preconceptual method:
1. Make up a theory based on what Funding Agency Manager wants to be true
2. Design minimum experimentation that will suggest the theory is true
3. Modify data to fit theory (optional)
4. Publish Paper: rename Theory a Hypothesis and pretend you used the Scientific Method
5. Defend Theory despite all evidence to the contrary

i thought pengiuins lived on the other side of the earth...


Or do Polar bears like the taste of penguins so much that they are willing to dig though the earth's core for them? :p

They have a teleporter, silly. :cool:

No, you see, penguins are actually a sub-species of lemmings that, instead of running off cliffs, migrate en-mass to the north pole to sacrifice themselves to their polar bear gods.

How far can I continue to fling this bullshit? Only the shadow knows. *evil grin*

Oh I read it. Trouble is that a few photos of polar bears perched precariously atop tiny icebergs and other anecdotal evidence is hardly proof of anything. In fact, Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals says that they're on the rise as a result of not climate change but the efforts of conservationists, according to London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). But I guess he and others like him are just a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and paid industry hacks, right?

Also, considering how everyone, credible scientists included, who question the conventional wisdom of catastophic AGW usually end up getting dismissed or shouted down, it kind of makes you wonder if the self-righteous and self-appointed guardians of the planet (but not the people) are so pure and true. I'm not saying Bush is friendly to science, he doesn't appear to be, but neither are those that follow those same tactics for the opposite ends.

Politics should never get into science, should never influence it, no matter the side taken.

Real science follows the scientific method:
1. Observe some phenomenon in the universe
2. Develop a tentative explanation, or hypothesis, for the phenomenon
3. Test the validity of the hypothesis (e.g., do an experiment or otherwise collect relevant data)
4. Refine the hypothesis on the basis of the results of the test
5. Repeat #3 and #4 until the hypothesis fits the phenomenon

What all too often gets headlines follows the preconceptual method:
1. Make up a theory based on what Funding Agency Manager wants to be true
2. Design minimum experimentation that will suggest the theory is true
3. Modify data to fit theory (optional)
4. Publish Paper: rename Theory a Hypothesis and pretend you used the Scientific Method
5. Defend Theory despite all evidence to the contrary

Or, just as often, the misinterpretation method:
1. Use scientific method to generate interesting data that will have to be independently verified and studied further.
2. Publish data in peer-reviewed journal, an important step in completing the new requirements created by step 1.
3. Have article in peer-reviewed journal read by sleep-deprived nonscientist intern trying to come up with 24 hours of material on a slow news day. Alternative: finding provides interesting wrinkle in our understanding of major phenomena, is conflated to outright refutation to generate artificial controversy by marketing people trying to attract viewers itching for a shouting match between ignorant pundits.
4. Have preliminary findings presented as indisputable facts by clueless anchorperson hired mostly because someone owed someone else a big favor.
5. Have barely attentive audience member absorb anchorperson's misinformed sound bite uncritically and register it as fact in some sleepy corner of their brain to be accessed again only to convince friends that he/she is, indeed, smart, because he/she knows about, like, science and stuff.

Oh I read it. Trouble is that a few photos of polar bears perched precariously atop tiny icebergs and other anecdotal evidence is hardly proof of anything. In fact, Mitch Taylor, a polar bear biologist who has spent 20 years studying the animals says that they're on the rise as a result of not climate change but the efforts of conservationists, according to London Telegraph (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/09/wpolar09.xml). But I guess he and others like him are just a part of the vast right-wing conspiracy and paid industry hacks, right?

I can link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2642773.stm) to articles supporting the claim that the polar bear population is declining, but that was never my point. I'm not trying to prove anything about global warming. The point was that the administration is placing legal barriers on free speech when it might not support their interests. Presenting an argument contrary to commonly held scientific theories does not make one a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Not allowing scientists to speak to the media about the subject does.

What all too often gets headlines follows the preconceptual method:
1. Make up a theory based on what Funding Agency Manager wants to be true
2. Design minimum experimentation that will suggest the theory is true
3. Modify data to fit theory (optional)
4. Publish Paper: rename Theory a Hypothesis and pretend you used the Scientific Method
5. Defend Theory despite all evidence to the contrary
QFT.

I can link (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/2642773.stm) to articles supporting the claim that the polar bear population is declining, but that was never my point.
The BBC isn't the most objective or reliable source of information.

The point was that the administration is placing legal barriers on free speech when it might not support their interests. Presenting an argument contrary to commonly held scientific theories does not make one a member of the vast right-wing conspiracy. Not allowing scientists to speak to the media about the subject does.
I'm pretty sure that they still can, just not on behalf of the current US government.