Friendly tip...Don't defend it as Gospel...it isn't. It is an opinion piece passed off as fact in a scientific journal. That is why many don't take it seriously.
Posted on 02/26/2006 11:12:43 AM PST by alumleg
Of course not. Gagging is never correct. But the preponderence of evidence on scientific matters is left up to scientists. Do you have a problem with that?
I am a scientist myself - a chemist. But if I presumed upon myself to pontificate in public with bogus authority about, say, planetary geology or some other field outside of my area of expertise - then not only muzzling but rotten eggs and tomatoes would be in order.
The hockey stick is broken!
The preponderance of govt research money goes towards creating models which establish the link from human CO2 to warming. The link is assumed in advance and the model is created to prove it. Are you okay with billions of dollars being spent in this way? Or would you rather see, as many of us do, the govt get out of the politically driven science business. I think that's the conservative response.
As other posters have pointed out, science has, unfortunately, become all about funding. Scientists have to eat, too, and most of them work for liberal universities with vested interests in seeing their "industries" -- like global warming -- continue raking in the bucks. It's similar to some charities: the last thing their big bucks executives and board members want is the problem to be solved. Then they have to look for real jobs.
Therefore, like the scientific alarmists, they have to stir up the rabble to keep the dollars in the pipeline.
Follow the money. It's a tried-and-true technique.
Who cares?
Did he go back and look at the mid 50s? I remember the heat back then when corn plants dried up when they got to 2 - 3 feet. Stock tanks dried up, grass did not grow all summer, yet now we blame this "global warming" on the current administration.
This is from the same bunch of idiots that think the shell fossils found in the Rocky Mountains were actually ocean creatures. If that was the case back then, the entire planet and all it inhabitants would be gone.
Junk science indeed. Global warming is just that. It is wise to put the kibosh on it. The SUN is responsible, humans are 4th-order causative or some miniscule bit.
Mt. St. Helens puts out more pollution than all the industries combined in Washington State, and you cannt put scrubbers on it, sorry, Greenies. Bush is wise to ignore GW.
And the Evangelical Leaders who came out FOR GW last week, what tripe. Have you heard their ads?? gag....
Friendly tip...Don't defend it as Gospel...it isn't. It is an opinion piece passed off as fact in a scientific journal. That is why many don't take it seriously.
I don't see where anyone has been muzzled. This scientist's opinion/theory is well known. Just because the agency he worked in has employees with different opinions from his is not necessarily muzzling. I think this guy is just frustrated and trying to get some attention thrown his way and the greenies are more than welcome to help his agenda.
As far as the science goes, severe hurricanes and warm ocean temperatures are not something new. Global warming / cooling is part of a natural cycle that is incompletely understood, but likely has its primary origin in the output of the sun. Numerous other factors mediate the overall effect.
Conservatives, at least I, care about the environment because we have a responsibility for future generations and for the well-being of our planet, not because of some phantom fear of global warming.
Frankly, we are that the point that if man is impacting the planet, we have impacted it so much that it is soo late.
Our greenhouse emissions are on the decrease, one of the few areas of environmental improvement in the last decade. Radical changes will not stop the warming. What we are doing now will slow it down.
[[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.]]
But it is ok for a scientist to use their government job to advance a personal agenda ? Free speech does not mean freedom from responsibility for exercising that freedom. It is in the employment guidelines for working for the federal government that you cannot use your agency or job title to advance or lend credibility to non-governmental positions or agendas. If one does not wish to abide by the guidelines they agree to when employed, they are free to seek employment in the private sector.
I see your last line is an attempt to attack 'conservatives'. Now that is a typical left wing response when someone will not bow down to their expressed left wing opinion.
Where do I find the link -- I'll check it out.
Do not change the title from that found at the source.
Very true. However, Donald Kennedy is not considered a raving lefty. And Science is not just another journal. We are talking about the editor of what is probably the most prestigious scientific journal on the planet. You may not agree with this guy, but a fool (or a tool) he ain't.
Sorry, that was unintentional.
"Follow the money. It's a tried-and-true technique."
Don't forget the "Deep Pockets".
There is absolutely no way an assertion that water temperatures are at their highest in 100 years can be substantiated.
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.