cybercoma Posted March 22, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 This sounds like crap from the old Soviet Union.... what an absolutely absurd and stupid policy. What about when Stephen Harper says scientists are not allowed to share and publicize their research? Sure he's not sending them for Huxlean psychological reprogramming like they're doing in Florida, but is it not a similar thing silencing scientists in order to bolster the propaganda of the Conservative Party? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 22, 2015 Report Share Posted March 22, 2015 What about when Stephen Harper says scientists are not allowed to share and publicize their research? Sure he's not sending them for Huxlean psychological reprogramming like they're doing in Florida, but is it not a similar thing silencing scientists in order to bolster the propaganda of the Conservative Party? At least in Florida it seems they just send you out for two days of re grooving if you dare utter such a phrase. But here if Harper sends you out its probably at least until he is out of office, and if he does keep you around, as you say you better still STFU. And he tries to justify that by saying the fed gov owns the data because THEY paid for it. Hmmm. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) What about when Stephen Harper says scientists are not allowed to share and publicize their research?They are allowed to publish in journals. They just can't have press conferences promoting their research. A perfectly reasonable restriction for any employee. The Florida mandate is ridiculous but it could be reworked to be reasonable if it was just a directive telling government employees that blaming everything on climate change is lazy and shoddy work. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Yeah, Tim, I'm sure that is Rick Scott's primary concern here. Making sure that the scientists aren't being lazy. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Yeah, Tim, I'm sure that is Rick Scott's primary concern here. Making sure that the scientists aren't being lazy.The Florida (non)directive was related to government workers which might include some scientists but they were not the target. And I am pretty sure that before this (non)directive came in climate change was a popular whipping boy which was constantly hauled out whenever a department head wanted more money. I could see someone getting sick of the nonsense and saying that if people want money they have to come up with better reasons than "climate change". That was turned into the idiotic attempt at thought control that appears to be going on now. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kimmy Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 You're intelligent enough to know full well that this (non)directive is entirely about tailoring the administration's messaging to make it palatable to their core voters and donors. -k Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted March 23, 2015 Author Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 You're intelligent enough to know full well that this (non)directive is entirely about tailoring the administration's messaging to make it palatable to their core voters and donors. -k No way. Conservative governments are trustworthy (liberals aren't) and scientists are the ones we should be skeptical about. /s Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) You're intelligent enough to know full well that this (non)directive is entirely about tailoring the administration's messaging to make it palatable to their core voters and donors.There are two sides to this. You seem to want to ignore the fact that it is common for bureaucrats to exaggerate climate change concerns and use the topic as an excuse to get funding. On the other you have republicans who seems to want to pretend the issue does not exist at all. Both sides are unreasonable and, in this case, the government response is excessive and uncalled for. But that does not mean the bureaucrats who want to "talk about climate change" are on the side of the angels. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) No way. Conservative governments are trustworthy (liberals aren't) and scientists are the ones we should be skeptical about.This story is about bureaucrats and their employer. The attempt to claim that it has something to do with "scientists" is a good example of the pathetic propaganda used by alarmists. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 This story is about bureaucrats and their employer. The attempt to claim that it has something to do with "scientists" is a good example of the pathetic propaganda used by alarmists. I think it was scientists who discovered and who track global warning. If they are not allowed to talk about it, who else will I wonder. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 I think it was scientists who discovered and who track global warning. If they are not allowed to talk about it, who else will I wonder.It is not relevant for this story. Attempting to slap the "scientist" label on Florida bureaucrats that happen to share your alarmist position is dishonest propaganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Don't worry Canadian alarmists and warmies.....your good friends at NASA, GISS, and NOAA are still hard at work and they are not gagged like "climate scientists" in Canada. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 It is not relevant for this story. Attempting to slap the "scientist" label on Florida bureaucrats that happen to share your alarmist position is dishonest propaganda. I think the dishonest propaganda is a state governor, who is admittedly not a scientist, banning the term when the reality of its presence is all around him. It may not be long until he (and others) have to look hard to find sand to bury their heads in. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mighty AC Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Watch the senate mock a Florida State Official because he is not permitted to use the phrase 'climate change'. “I used ‘climate change but I’m suggesting that maybe as a state, we use the term ‘atmospheric reemployment.’ That might be something that the governor could get behind.” Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 "Climate change" is redundant....."climate" is always changing...has for billions of years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) I think the dishonest propaganda is a state governor, who is admittedly not a scientist, banning the term when the reality of its presence is all around him. It may not be long until he (and others) have to look hard to find sand to bury their heads in.Except, I have argued in this thread that the ban on the word is ridiculous, but context is important. For example, alarmist propagandists that slap a "scientist" label on anyone who says things they like are a real problem which needs to be addressed even if the Florida government's solution is wrong headed. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Except, I have argued in this thread that the ban on the word is ridiculous, but context is important. For example, the alarmist propagandists that slap a "scientist" label on anyone who says things they like is a real problem which needs to be addressed even if the Florida government's solution is wrong headed. Unfortunately there are a lot of real scientists who are saying a lot of things I dont like to hear. But the evidence that supports them keeps piling up. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Unfortunately there are a lot of real scientists who are saying a lot of things I dont like to hear. But the evidence that supports them keeps piling up.Except you do not look at the actual scientific evidence. You pick and choose the evidence and, in some case, rely on outright fabrications to support your desire to believe in "solutions" that require big government to swoop in an save us from ourselves. I am willing to bet that if the "solutions" required reduced government spending and deregulation you would very quickly reject the notion of climate change as baseless fear mongering no matter how many scientists claimed it was an issue. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Except you do not look at the actual scientific evidence. You pick and choose the evidence and, in some case, rely on outright fabrications to support your desire to believe in "solutions" that require big government to swoop in an save us from ourselves. I am willing to bet that if the "solutions" required reduced government spending and deregulation you would very quickly reject the notion of climate change as baseless fear mongering no matter how many scientists claimed it was an issue. And you would lose your bet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 I think when your shorelines, streets, buildings are starting to be washed away due to sea level rise from global warming it may be time quit thinking its a chicken little syndrome ad respond to the situation. Perfect example of Chicken Little. Florida Keys are only a couple of feet above sea level....yet I don't see any evacuations planned just yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
On Guard for Thee Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 Perfect example of Chicken Little. Florida Keys are only a couple of feet above sea level....yet I don't see any evacuations planned just yet. Maybe not just yet, but give it a few years. I imagine a lot of the retired seaside property owners, at least the ones who are paying attention, probably reckon they wont be around long enough to have to worry. But their kids may get a shock when they go to sell off the property when that time comes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Maybe not just yet, but give it a few years. I imagine a lot of the retired seaside property owners, at least the ones who are paying attention, probably reckon they wont be around long enough to have to worry. But their kids may get a shock when they go to sell off the property when that time comes. How many - 50, 100? Not much going on right now. Still a lot of seaside properties being built. Chicken Little until it starts to happen......and then decades to adapt. But hey, maybe you should look around for an investment in a company that builds Arks. Sounds like you think there's a fortune to me made. Edited March 23, 2015 by Keepitsimple Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 How many - 50, 100? Not much going on right now. Still a lot of seaside properties being built. Chicken Little until it starts to happen......and then decades to adapt.Its rather quite amusing to see this considering there are probably less than or maybe betw 50-100 women in Canada who might want to wear a burqa yet there you are all over it flailing and whinging about the horror of them doing so. And when we have first hand knowledge of some towns (way up north) being being swamped by rising seas its all ok according to you. So yea, thats not chicken little, what is though is worrying all day and night about a piece of cloth. Funny how those priniciples are so elastic to fit any agenda you have . Thanks for making that readily apparent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TimG Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 (edited) Its rather quite amusing to see this considering there are probably less than or maybe betw 50-100 women in Canada who might want to wear a burqa yet there you are all over it flailing and whinging about the horror of them doing so.That issue is about principle. Not fear mongering. I would have a problem if even one person wanted to wear a KKK hood the citizenship oath. The niqab is no different. And when we have first hand knowledge of some towns (way up north) being being swamped by rising seas its all ok according to you.This is largely nonsense. The examples cited are problems caused by numerous factors that do not include the 3-4 inches of sea level rise from the last 70 years. Your alleged counter example is just more dishonest fear-mongering by alarmists. Edited March 23, 2015 by TimG Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
guyser Posted March 23, 2015 Report Share Posted March 23, 2015 That issue is about principle. Not fear mongering. I would have a problem if even one person wanted to wear a KKK hood the citizenship oath. The niqab is no different.Innocuous? I dont worry about things that are innocuous This is largely nonsense.So in some ways it is very true. Thanks for acknowledging that. We both know it is The examples cited are problems caused by numerous factors that do not include the 3-4 inches of sea level rise from the last 70 years. Your alleged counter example is just more dishonest fear-mongering by alarmists.Oh but Im talking about the recent rise due to warming. Im sorry but fear mongering does not include the towns being moved. We call that real...as in reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.