I've resigned myself to try to find a way to run my snowmobile on gravel. Dang.

Getup Standup
Standup for your right


Getup Standup
Dont giveup the fight

That knife cuts both ways when oil companies generously fund sign-tists who doubt GW publicly.

True, It does cut both ways. people are right to be skeptical of "big oil", or other big corporations.
How come the very people who fear big corporations seldom question the motives of the "big government" party? We should be equally skeptical of those who fund research from both sides.

If there is ANY true evidence against a theory, doesn't that theory get shot to hell straight away? Just like Pythagoras Theorem. If I can find one instance where it doesn't work, doesn't that mean that PT is shot to hell?

Lets say, for one moment that you are correct, why would anyone need to muzzle a opposing opinion? For instance, we know there is no debate that the sun rises in the east. So, if you or I were to stand in the middle of Times Square and declare that tomorrow, the sun will rise in the west, what difference would it make? Unless your theory is so shaky that you fear it being challenged?

God help us all in this burlesque farrago we live in:(

Which "Big Government" party do you mean?

Exactly right. Good science is made by folks subjected to thoughtful skepticism.

Because somebody gets money from EXXON or ADM or Merck does not mean that person is a flack for the company. The same with scientists who get money from TNC or WWF or DU, etc. Most of those scientists want the money to do the research to find the truth of whatever their interest is. Unfortunately, sometimes they are not so idealistic and that's why objective skepticism is extremely valuable.

Now for a little story.

in teh mid-1990's the president gave the VP extraordinary power to reshape gov. His charge was to make it more responsive and more open to public scrutiny and to put government on a full-cost accounting. Most of teh results have been pretty positive. The government is doing less work internally that compete with private enterprise, for example. Also, the accounting has made it much easier for the exec and Congress to see where the money is going.

On the downside is this: by making the agencies more 'open' to review, it has had a terrible outcome. In one government science agency that I am familiar with, no scientist may publish anything without undergoing internal editorial and POLICY review. What is a policy review?

Any result that impacts current governmental policy is subject to editorial changes or outright suppression. For example, let's say a government funded scientist (could be a university prof working on soft gov money) finds that some action by FWS is killing ... say spotted owls. Publication of the results of the study, if they mention that the current policy results in dead spotted owls, is subject to government control -- censorship.

So what?

Well, I know several scientists who are now self-censoring their results to expunge their conclusions of any comments that might reflect on gov management & policy.

Bot

I'll agree that I don't want pols whoring on some issue, ignoring an impartial look at the facts, because it's the civil outrage du jour.

But that is what they do to get votes. What do you suggest? That they hold unpopular positions?

You mean like the Earth not being the center of the universe; the world not being flat; "Elegant Design?"

If global warming is happening, we won't be able to do anything about it without significant changes in energy production technology. UNLESS, we want to give up some of the stuff that takes energy to operate.

Any suggestion that current technology levels involving 'alternative' energy are sufficient to simply substitute for fossil fuels is fantasy.

China and India are building hundreds of coal burning electric generating stations as we speak. Many are planned in the US.

There are ways to get the btu's from coal and oil without polluting the atmosphere, but it's complicated.

Our government would do well to stay away from junk science and polling data. The average man on the street doesn't know doo-doo about energy or CO2 or any of it - and their opinions shouldn't count - except at the voting booth. For the man on the street to be asked his opinion about global warming is insane. But if you say something often enough, it becomes a truism. This will finally lead to the government telling us to stop using energy - or to the government regulating the hours that you can run your air conditioners in the summer time.

Rolling blackouts are on the way. Global warming will be blamed - a big fat guilt trip is in store for rich Americans - and for no reason. In one hundred years, you'll see. And one or two people reading this now will still be alive to prove me right!

Yes. Show some balls, dammit. Look at Chuck Hagel right now. I'd be curious to know how his stance on Bush's surge is playing back in Nebraska, not exactly a liberal hot-bed.

We need leaders, not panderers. Course, that's a lot of what W and Cheney think. Too bad they don't have some wisdom to go along with their boldness.

What unpopular positions is he holding?