Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

The New Gag Rules
Science Magazine ^ | Feb 17, 2006 | Donald Kennedy

Posted on 02/26/2006 11:12:43 AM PST by alumleg

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last
To: GSlob

Hey, I'm not arguing global warming. I'm wondering if it is appropriate for politicians to be muzzling scientists. I take it you think that's okay?


21 posted on 02/26/2006 11:40:22 AM PST by alumleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 17 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
It is an Editorial


22 posted on 02/26/2006 11:41:29 AM PST by darkwing104 (Let's get dangerous)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
Are you really so sure you can neglect your children's future so cavalierly?

Yes. Yes I am sure.

23 posted on 02/26/2006 11:42:20 AM PST by keat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
The entire final paragraph is actually a good description of the way the politicized science establishment is approaching this issue. Tenure, grants, peer-reviewed publication -- all depend on toeing the orthodox line. Heterodox views are severely punished.
24 posted on 02/26/2006 11:44:15 AM PST by USFRIENDINVICTORIA
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alumleg

Even if the earth were warming, there simply isn't enough data to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that humans are the cause.

The earth seems to have been warming steadily since the ice age. Did Dinosaur methane emissions do what cars and cows are being blamed for today? This just develoves from there.

Overpopulation is the real issue of our age, but nobody is going to touch that one. As long as those evil producers are declining and those angelic non-producers are expanding out of control, everything is wonderful.


25 posted on 02/26/2006 11:44:39 AM PST by DoughtyOne (If you don't want to be lumped in with those who commit violence in your name, take steps to end it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
Guess you missed this one:

Newsweek, April 28, 1975
www.denisdutton.com

There are ominous signs that the Earth’s weather patterns have begun to change dramatically and that these changes may portend a drastic decline in food production– with serious political implications for just about every nation on Earth. The drop in food output could begin quite soon, perhaps only 10 years from now. The regions destined to feel its impact are the great wheat-producing lands of Canada and the U.S.S.R. in the North, along with a number of marginally self-sufficient tropical areas – parts of India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Indochina and Indonesia – where the growing season is dependent upon the rains brought by the monsoon.

26 posted on 02/26/2006 11:45:34 AM PST by SouthTexas
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
I'm wondering if it is appropriate for politicians to be muzzling scientists.

I'd be against muzzling them but definitely in favor of cutting all their funding until they can produce at least a halfway credible theory of man made climate change on a global scale.

So far I haven't seen it.

27 posted on 02/26/2006 11:46:47 AM PST by keat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
Don't worry, in a couple years, the SUN will be at the other end of its eleven year cycle and we'll be hearing about global cooling instead of global warming.

Oh, that's right, it's not "liberal", it's "progressive". It's not "global warming", it's "climate change".

Isn't it funny how these "scientists" use tenths of a degree to "prove" climate change, with the differential based on questionable data collected decades and centuries ago, data that didn't have this level of precision and would never pass a purely objective scientific review?

Keep screaming, Chicken Little and larger percentages of the general popluation will keep ignoring you. Or you can spend your time trying to put muzzles the biggest source of "greenhouse gases" on our planet, volcanos, and I'll be impressed...
28 posted on 02/26/2006 11:47:12 AM PST by larryw408
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: darkwing104

Well, that is a cogent comment. Yes, it is an editorial. About politicians muzzling scientists.


29 posted on 02/26/2006 11:47:47 AM PST by alumleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
I don't see why this issue is a political one.

Science gets politicized all the time in the real world. In this case there is a worldwide movement to limit energy use for political, not scientific, reasons. Global warming was an ideal scientific theory to hitch on to which is why there are so many european and UN types pushing the ideas of transferring wealth from rich, capitalist, energy using coutries to poor, mostly authoritarian ones.

In short, it's socialism dictated by world bureaucrats.

30 posted on 02/26/2006 11:47:57 AM PST by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: alumleg

I think one can garner your political leanings, joining FR just to post this piece. This oped by Science magazine is easily dismissed. Why ? The fraud that pervades the IPCC, upon which most global warming experts rely. Global warming and Darwinism have become industries unto themselves that is reliant on government funding and grants. To keep that money flowing, they must paint the most dire pictures (global warming) and deny/demean any opposition (global warming and Darwinism). To let counter opinions gain legitimacy will certainly dry up the funds they so enjoy spending and living off of. Magazines like Science and Nature do have self-serving agendas, to keep the money flowing for their sacred cows. Sadly, instead of advancing science, they engage in scientific censorship.

The above said, I do hope a ZOT does not occur, though your leanings are apparent and contrary to most on this site, your tone was not offensive.


31 posted on 02/26/2006 11:48:05 AM PST by KMAJ2 (Freedom not defended is freedom relinquished, liberty not fought for is liberty lost.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SouthTexas

So this makes it OK for politicians to be telling scientists what they may and may not say at scientific meetings?


32 posted on 02/26/2006 11:48:45 AM PST by alumleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
Hey, I'm not arguing global warming. I'm wondering if it is appropriate for politicians to be muzzling scientists. I take it you think that's okay?

Is it appropriate for a scientist to use his position to advance a political agenda?

33 posted on 02/26/2006 11:49:34 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: KMAJ2

The reason for my post was to point out the fact that we have politicians who think it is OK to tell scientists what they may and may not say at scientific meetings. And the tone of your comment makes it obvious that this is a general problem with what used to be called conservatives.


34 posted on 02/26/2006 11:50:15 AM PST by alumleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 31 | View Replies]

To: alumleg

It's disturbing, until you take into consideration that Hansen's words as an individual would be construed by many as NASA's opinion, not simply Hansen's.


35 posted on 02/26/2006 11:50:41 AM PST by Clara Lou (A conservative is a liberal who has been mugged by reality. --I. Kristol)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
So this makes it OK for politicians to be telling scientists what they may and may not say at scientific meetings?

Where is that even alledged. It is his supervisors, not politicians. You are twisting facts.

36 posted on 02/26/2006 11:50:49 AM PST by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
His sin was that he pointed out that the climate change signal is now so strong, 2005 having been the warmest year in the past century, that the voluntary measures proposed by the administration are likely to be inadequate.

Ahhhh. Science.
It certainly isn't what it used to be.
National Geographic? nice pictures but otherwise crap. If you have access to the classic days of WW2 and just after, note the difference.

This atticle has NOAA and NASA peppered throughout and that zinger is snuck in with the hope that it will have "authority by association", although this is one idiot's opinion using that saddest of all techniques: the Hilary approach, where...

... . They concluded: her trick was never actually to make any arguments -- just state conclusions that were all already accepted as self-evident by her audience.

This doofus whines about NOAA and NASA limiting themselves to science. His political bent suffers as a result. Too effing bad! Science has not challenged global warming. Science merely will not go where the ignorant and the "progressives" wish to go: to manippulate society with the chimera of "stopping global warming", a fool's errand.

37 posted on 02/26/2006 11:51:00 AM PST by Publius6961 (Multiculturalism is the white flag of a dying country)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: alumleg
I'm wondering if it is appropriate for politicians to be muzzling scientists

Is it appropriate for scientists to politicize science? Is it appropriate for them to disseminate theories (e.g. the "forcing" theory) as established fact to the general public? Scientists on the other side have been muzzled in academia and the scientific press. Are you okay with that?

38 posted on 02/26/2006 11:51:26 AM PST by palmer (Money problems do not come from a lack of money, but from living an excessive, unrealistic lifestyle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]

To: Always Right

Absolutely not. And whether or not that is what is going on is left up to the scientific community to decide. This is a time honored way that scientists have policed their own, and it has borne great fruit for all of society.


39 posted on 02/26/2006 11:51:30 AM PST by alumleg
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: alumleg

Do you think it's okay for journalists to muzzle scientists who don't subscribe to the global warming mantra?

Do you really think there's a conspiracy out there which will keep any scientist or wacko quiet? I notice that there's never any background done or search for motivation on a "muzzled" scientist who is already a Carterite "greenpisser." But if a scientist is skeptical of the global warming theory he's automatically searched for ties to Big Oil or the Bush Administration.

Give me a break, don't believe Everything you hear. Look at what motivates people and always be skeptical. You'll never find 100% agreement on any scientific theory, but in this day and age you'd think there were no scientists who disagree with the hockey stick.

Read "State of Fear," not as a crackpot rightwing book, but just to keep your mind open to motivational factors for the "humans are destroying the world" theories.

Never mind, just keep believing everything the New York Times tells you.


40 posted on 02/26/2006 11:52:10 AM PST by soloNYer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 21 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 121-138 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson