[Politics] Bush Administration censoring SCIENCE

[enjoi]

From CBS: 60 Minutes
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml

CBS) As a government scientist, James Hansen is taking a risk. He says there are things the White House doesn't want you to hear but he's going to say them anyway.

Hansen is arguably the world's leading researcher on global warming. He's the head of NASA's top institute studying the climate. But this imminent scientist tells correspondent Scott Pelley that the Bush administration is restricting who he can talk to and editing what he can say. Politicians, he says, are rewriting the science.

But he didn't hold back speaking to Pelley, telling 60 Minutes what he knows.


Asked if he believes the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it."

What James Hansen believes is that global warming is accelerating. He points to the melting arctic and to Antarctica, where new data show massive losses of ice to the sea.

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide. Hansen says his research shows that man has just 10 years to reduce greenhouse gases before global warming reaches what he calls a tipping point and becomes unstoppable. He says the White House is blocking that message.

"In my more than three decades in the government I've never witnessed such restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public," says Hansen.

Restrictions like this e-mail Hansen's institute received from NASA in 2004. "… there is a new review process … ," the e-mail read. "The White House (is) now reviewing all climate related press releases," it continued.

Why the scrutiny of Hansen's work? Well, his Goddard Institute for Space Studies is the source of respected but sobering research on warming. It recently announced 2005 was the warmest year on record. Hansen started at NASA more than 30 years ago, spending nearly all that time studying the earth. How important is his work? 60 Minutes asked someone at the top, Ralph Cicerone, president of the nation’s leading institute of science, the National Academy of Sciences.

"I can't think of anybody who I would say is better than Hansen. You might argue that there's two or three others as good, but nobody better," says Cicerone.

And Cicerone, who’s an atmospheric chemist, said the same thing every leading scientist told 60 Minutes.

"Climate change is really happening," says Cicerone.

Asked what is causing the changes, Cicernone says it's greenhouse gases: "Carbon dioxide and methane, and chlorofluorocarbons and a couple of others, which are all — the increases in their concentrations in the air are due to human activities. It's that simple."

But if it is that simple, why do some climate science reports look like they have been heavily edited at the White House? With science labeled "not sufficiently reliable." It’s a tone of scientific uncertainty the president set in his first months in office after he pulled out of a global treaty to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.

"We do not know how much our climate could, or will change in the future," President Bush said in 2001, speaking in the Rose Garden of the White House. "We do not know how fast change will occur, or even how some of our actions could impact it."

Annoyed by the ambiguity, Hansen went public a year and a half ago, saying this about the Bush administration in a talk at the University of Iowa: "I find a willingness to listen only to those portions of scientific results that fit predetermined inflexible positions. This, I believe, is a recipe for environmental disaster."

Since then, NASA has been keeping an eye on Hansen. NASA let Pelley sit down with him but only with a NASA representative taping the interview. Other interviews have been denied.

"I object to the fact that I’m not able to freely communicate via the media," says Hansen. "National Public Radio wanted to interview me and they were told they would need to interview someone at NASA headquarters and the comment was made that they didn’t want Jim Hansen going on the most liberal media in America. So I don’t think that kind of decision should be made on that kind of basis. I think we should be able to communicate the science."

Politically, Hansen calls himself an independent and he’s had trouble with both parties. He says, from time to time, the Clinton administration wanted to hear warming was worse that it was. But Hansen refused to spin the science that way.

"Should we be simply doing our science and reporting it rigorously, or to what degree the administration in power has the right to assume that you should be a spokesman for the administration?" asks Hansen. "I've tried to be a straight scientist doing the science and reporting it as best I can."

Dozens of federal agencies report science but much of it is edited at the White House before it is sent to Congress and the public. It appears climate science is edited with a heavy hand. Drafts of climate reports were co-written by Rick Piltz for the federal Climate Change Science Program. But Piltz says his work was edited by the White House to make global warming seem less threatening.

"The strategy of people with a political agenda to avoid this issue is to say there is so much to study way upstream here that we can’t even being to discuss impacts and response strategies," says Piltz. "There’s too much uncertainty. It's not the climate scientists that are saying that, its lawyers and politicians."

Piltz worked under the Clinton and Bush administrations. Each year, he helped write a report to Congress called "Our Changing Planet."

Piltz says he is responsible for editing the report and sending a review draft to the White House.

Asked what happens, Piltz says: "It comes back with a large number of edits, handwritten on the hard copy by the chief-of-staff of the Council on Environmental Quality."

Asked who the chief of staff is, Piltz says, "Phil Cooney."

Piltz says Cooney is not a scientist. "He's a lawyer. He was a lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, before going into the White House," he says.

Cooney, the former oil industry lobbyist, became chief-of-staff at the White House Council on Environmental Quality. Piltz says Cooney edited climate reports in his own hand. In one report, a line that said earth is undergoing rapid change becomes “may be undergoing change.” “Uncertainty” becomes “significant remaining uncertainty.” One line that says energy production contributes to warming was just crossed out.

"He was obviously passing it through a political screen," says Piltz. "He would put in the word potential or may or weaken or delete text that had to do with the likely consequence of climate change, pump up uncertainty language throughout."

In a report, Piltz says Cooney added this line “… the uncertainties remain so great as to preclude meaningfully informed decision making. …” References to human health are marked out. 60 Minutes obtained the drafts from the Government Accountability Project. This edit made it into the final report: the phrase “earth may be” undergoing change made it into the report to Congress. Piltz says there wasn’t room at the White House for those who disagreed, so he resigned.

"Even to raise issues internally is immediately career limiting," says Piltz. "That’s why you will find not too many people in the federal agencies who will speak freely about all the things they know, unless they’re retired or unless they’re ready to resign."

Jim Hansen isn't retiring or resigning because he believes earth is nearing a point of no return. He urged 60 Minutes to look north to the arctic, where temperatures are rising twice as fast as the rest of the world. When 60 Minutes visited Greenland this past August, we saw for ourselves the accelerating melt of the largest ice sheet in the north.

"Here in Greenland about 15 years ago the ice sheet extended to right about where I'm standing now, but today, its back there, between those two hills in the shaded area. Glaciologists call this a melt stream but, these days, its a more like a melt river," Pelley said, standing at the edge of Greenland's ice sheet.

The Bush administration doesn’t deny global warming or that man plays a role. The administration is spending billions of dollars on climate research. Hansen gives the White House credit for research but says what’s urgent now is action.

"We have to, in the next 10 years, get off this exponential curve and begin to decrease the rate of growth of CO2 emissions," Hansen explains. "And then flatten it out. And before we get to the middle of the century, we’ve got to be on a declining curve.

"If that doesn't happen in 10 years, then I don’t think we can keep global warming under one degree Celsius and that means we’re going to, that there’s a great danger of passing some of these tipping points. If the ice sheets begin to disintegrate, what can you do about it? You can’t tie a rope around the ice sheet. You can’t build a wall around the ice sheets. It will be a situation that is out of our control."

But that's not a situation you'll find in one federal report submitted for review. Government scientists wanted to tell you about the ice sheets, but before a draft of the report left the White House, the paragraph on glacial melt and flooding was crossed out and this was added: "straying from research strategy into speculative findings and musings here."

Hansen says his words were edited once during a presentation when a top official scolded him for using the word danger.

"I think we know a lot more about the tipping points," says Hansen. "I think we know about the dangers of even a moderate degree of additional global warming about the potential effects in the arctic about the potential effects on the ice sheets."

"You just used that word again that you’re not supposed to use — danger," Pelley remarks.

"Yeah. It’s a danger," Hansen says.

For months, 60 Minutes had been trying to talk with the president’s science advisor. 60 Minutes was finally told he would never be available. Phil Cooney, the editor at the Council on Environmental Quality didn’t return 60 Minutes' calls. In June, he left the White House and went to work for Exxon Mobil.

Remind me again: Why do Republicans support him? Cause as far as I can see he is not a Conservative. Or even smart.

I mean honestly: Here it is from our best scientists saying "WE ARE IN DANGER WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW"
Bush administration: "Stop worrying, and shut up"

[Superman]

thats really messed up... i cant believe that no one in the world has stepped up to try and cut down on global warming. this is absolutely ridiculous. im going to bring this up to my earth science teacher tomorrow. thanks for bringing this up enjoi. what do you think would happen to the world if global warming became unstoppable?

[enjoi]

thats really messed up... i cant believe that no one in the world has stepped up to try and cut down on global warming. this is absolutely ridiculous. im going to bring this up to my earth science teacher tomorrow. thanks for bringing this up enjoi. what do you think would happen to the world if global warming became unstoppable?
Eventually humans would die off, or we would go back to the stone ages, but our population would greatly suffer, then boom again.

The Earth eventually will balance itself out though.

[TheKOB]

Remind me again: Why do Republicans support him? Cause as far as I can see he is not a Conservative. Or even smart.

I mean honestly: Here it is from our best scientists saying "WE ARE IN DANGER WE NEED TO DO SOMETHING NOW"
Bush administration: "Stop worrying, and shut up"

Basically, it's far from proven that global warming even exists. Some people think/thought (in the 80's) that we were in the middle of a cooling trend.

Why bash Bush because he doesn't want to be resposible for hysteria brought on by political environmentalists? ...because it's popular.

[JoshM]

Basically, it's far from proven that global warming even exists. Some people think/thought (in the 80's) that we were in the middle of a cooling trend.

Why bash Bush because he doesn't want to be resposible for hysteria brought on by political environmentalists? ...because it's popular.
But even so, he shouldn't ignore it and try to censor it. Which is what he's doing. And these aren't all political environmentalists. These are scientists.

[enjoi]

Basically, it's far from proven that global warming even exists. Some people think/thought (in the 80's) that we were in the middle of a cooling trend.

Why bash Bush because he doesn't want to be resposible for hysteria brought on by political environmentalists? ...because it's popular.
So i guess we are wasting ALOT of money on these top level Nasa scientists. Oh how terrible! Oh gosh if TheKOB says its true it must be! Especially with his meteorology degree, oh gosh. (P.S. - Radiation doesn't exist, its god punishing you for your sins >:|) Maybe because he doesn't want to do anything about it, as it allows his business buddies to make more money by having lax government regulations?

The only thing I will concede to you is that we don't have enough data to say that this isn't a big warming spell that naturally happens. But we don't go on what we don't know in science, we go with what we do know, because otherwise you might as well just call it blind faith. And if global warming has been largely disproven, why are there scientists who speak out for it? Why is there a large majority of scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) supporting this? But no Kob, you are right, there is absolutely no data supporting global warming caused by humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Warming_of_the_Earth) because of industrialization whatsoever, and all those meteoroligists are just a bunch of fame hungry scare mongering evil pace luvin' derty libruhls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png) (Industrialization started around 1800 btw)
edit - I will also give you that it hasn't been proven 100% as well, but there are hundreds of scientific theories that are accepted as fact anyways.
But even so, he shouldn't ignore it and try to censor it. Which is what he's doing. And these aren't all political environmentalists. These are scientists.
Exactly. I thought part of Convservative philosophy included the free flow of education and ideas? Without the freedom to learn, people will suffer economically and intellectually. In truth classical conservatism is not bad at all, and has some great ideas.

[ColtsLax]

Its been stated that Wikipedia is not a legit source. It can be edited by anyone, to say anything.

Clearly you misunderstand the purpose of science. We base our actions on this we are 100% positive about, so if there is still doubt if Humans cause global warming, how will we know if the steps to prevent it are working.

On top of that, we are already doing things, all of the non-american car companies have been researching alternative fuels for about a decade. GM and Ford just got on the bandwagon, but Honda and Toyota are WAY ahead of everyone.


And this is coming from the same news corporation who held false documents as facts...

[enjoi]

Its been stated that Wikipedia is not a legit source. It can be edited by anyone, to say anything.

Clearly you misunderstand the purpose of science. We base our actions on this we are 100% positive about, so if there is still doubt if Humans cause global warming, how will we know if the steps to prevent it are working.

But it is moderated very closely and every topic is watched over and protected. You can also see who made what changes, at what time what day, etc. I wouldn't use it as a source for say a paper... but I would use it as a source for a discussion such as this. From everything i have heard (talking with professors at University of Illinois Chicago) is that while it does have that flaw, its much better than say the History Channel or the Discovery Channel. But then again thats just opinions.
But we do base our actions on things we aren't 100% sure of. Otherwise there would be alot less theories, and alot more laws. Look at Quantum Mechanics for example which is almost exclusively theory.
We see where the correlations lie, and act accordingly. Of course this is a simplification, but

On top of that, we are already doing things, all of the non-american car companies have been researching alternative fuels for about a decade. GM and Ford just got on the bandwagon, but Honda and Toyota are WAY ahead of everyone.


And this is coming from the same news corporation who held false documents as facts...
Oh yeah, we are already doing things, which is great. But this discussion is not about global warming, its about our President's adminsitration actively silenceing top level scientists.

[The Chariot]

Yes, citing Wikipedia is like, well, citing nothing. Anyone can add information to it, thats what makes it free.

I think there are bigger issues at hand than the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Truly.

If Bush did what you accuse him of, then there is really no right to that, but I can understand him not backing major changes to appease these enviromentalists. Most of the cuts that would have to be made would completely raze our (already troubled) economy.

[ColtsLax]

But the questions that this article doesnt really address is, What was edited out?

It mentioned some additions like "may" or "uncertain" but i would like to see the actual text. I feel that there is more to this story then what we see here.

[JoshM]

Yes, citing Wikipedia is like, well, citing nothing. Anyone can add information to it, thats what makes it free.

I think there are bigger issues at hand than the warming/cooling trends of the Earth. Truly.

If Bush did what you accuse him of, then there is really no right to that, but I can understand him not backing major changes to appease these enviromentalists. Most of the cuts that would have to be made would completely raze our (already troubled) economy.
A study was done not too long ago comparing wikipedia to a major name brand encyclopedia. They found, in most instances, wikipedia was more accurate.

And again, these aren't just extremist environmentalists making these claims. They are world-renowned scientists.

[wolfie8914]

Why wouldnt Bush censor this stuff and start the revolution to clean up our atmostphere?

Answer: Cleaning up the atmostphere means imposing strict regulations on Big Business/Industry (yes that includes oil industry)—Why would Bush want to harm his cronies?

...exactly, he wouldn't, he is loyal to his piggy bank (the oil industry, big business)

[zak]

I think its a good thing. Those cheeky scientists are always trying to birng down hard-working americans with their regulations and restrictions. I say its about time we start shutting them up. Besides, it was a nice day today, so I have no idea what theyre talking about.

[wolfie8914]

I think its a good thing. Those cheeky scientists are always trying to birng down hard-working americans with their regulations and restrictions. I say its about time we start shutting them up. Besides, it was a nice day today, so I have no idea what theyre talking about.


talk about ignorant.


I love how people consume Bush admin. propoganda like a 72 ounce Big Gulp at 7-11.

[enjoi]

talk about ignorant.


I love how people consume Bush admin. propoganda like a 72 ounce Big Gulp at 7-11.
He was kidding.

[wolfie8914]

He was kidding.

Well lets not kid ourselves....a lot of people would say things like that (i.e. coltslax)

[gobluemiddie]

Basically, it's far from proven that global warming even exists. Some people think/thought (in the 80's) that we were in the middle of a cooling trend.

Why bash Bush because he doesn't want to be resposible for hysteria brought on by political environmentalists? ...because it's popular.
perhaps, if you had slowed down enough, you would have considered that Mr. Hansen probably knows a heck of a lot more about global warming than President Bush, who has repeatedly shown that he really doesn't care about the environment at all (loosening the Clean Air Act, trying to drill for oil in protected Alaskan wilderness, allowing ATVs and snowmobiles in Yellowstone, etc.). Perhaps it's popular because enough of us realize it's true.

[ColtsLax]

Well lets not kid ourselves....a lot of people would say things like that (i.e. coltslax)
its true, scientists only facilitate the advancement of the Democratic Party, which is really a front for the Communists. and as we all know

I'D RATHER BE DEAD THEN RED!

[wolfie8914]

its true, scientists only facilitate the advancement of the Democratic Party, which is really a front for the Communists. and as we all know

I'D RATHER BE DEAD THEN RED!

haha i told ya

[TheKOB]

Why wouldnt Bush censor this stuff and start the revolution to clean up our atmostphere?

Answer: Cleaning up the atmostphere means imposing strict regulations on Big Business/Industry (yes that includes oil industry)—Why would Bush want to harm his cronies?

...exactly, he wouldn't, he is loyal to his piggy bank (the oil industry, big business)

and big business is bad? (pardon the alliteration). Big Business provides jobs. Hows about we solve this on a global scale, and not one that will cripple some economies and advance others (aka Kyoto and China)

You guys love to throw around the words "big buisness" and "industry" like their bad. I think it's one of the dumber things I've seen on here, and something I still don't understand. Why are you against US business?
So i guess we are wasting ALOT of money on these top level Nasa scientists. Oh how terrible! Oh gosh if TheKOB says its true it must be! Especially with his meteorology degree, oh gosh. (P.S. - Radiation doesn't exist, its god punishing you for your sins >:|) Maybe because he doesn't want to do anything about it, as it allows his business buddies to make more money by having lax government regulations?

The only thing I will concede to you is that we don't have enough data to say that this isn't a big warming spell that naturally happens. But we don't go on what we don't know in science, we go with what we do know, because otherwise you might as well just call it blind faith. And if global warming has been largely disproven, why are there scientists who speak out for it? Why is there a large majority of scientists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change) supporting this? But no Kob, you are right, there is absolutely no data supporting global warming caused by humans (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Warming#Warming_of_the_Earth) because of industrialization whatsoever, and all those meteoroligists are just a bunch of fame hungry scare mongering evil pace luvin' derty libruhls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Carbon_Dioxide_400kyr-2.png) (Industrialization started around 1800 btw)
edit - I will also give you that it hasn't been proven 100% as well, but there are hundreds of scientific theories that are accepted as fact anyways.

Exactly. I thought part of Convservative philosophy included the free flow of education and ideas? Without the freedom to learn, people will suffer economically and intellectually. In truth classical conservatism is not bad at all, and has some great ideas.

You could have shortened your response to a sentence or two, and leave out all the sarcasm. You take something I said and blow it out of proportion, and make up something else that I didn't say.

100's of scientists. Good thing that there is only like 500 scientists, right? I want some proof. And try to lay off the winikipedia bs.

as for the free flow of ideas, it's one scientist. Also, is this article written like a statement of fact or an opinion piece? I could quote Rush Limbaugh and say that's a statement of fact, but I won't. Because I'm not a moron. Nor am I that caught up in my political party that I'll do anything and say anything to put a dent in the other side. <cou(enjoi)gh>

as for proven, it hasn't been even proven 50%, or 10%. Either it's proven, or it's not. And who's accepting it as fact if it's not proven? If you accept it as fact, does that make it any more of a fact you any less of an idiot for believing something that's not true?
perhaps, if you had slowed down enough, you would have considered that Mr. Hansen probably knows a heck of a lot more about global warming than President Bush, who has repeatedly shown that he really doesn't care about the environment at all (loosening the Clean Air Act, trying to drill for oil in protected Alaskan wilderness, allowing ATVs and snowmobiles in Yellowstone, etc.). Perhaps it's popular because enough of us realize it's true.

He may, but that doesn't mean that he's right.

There is caring about the environment, and then caring about it to the point that you hurt people and the country. We could all go back to the middle ages. Heck, we could all kill ourselves. That sure as heck would save the environment.

You want a crappy economy but great environment? You CAN'T have industry and a pristine environment (like you're suggesting) without industry. So....millions of american jobs, or some forest land that there isn't anything particularly special about?

Also, go ahead and prove (proof, not this happened and this happened, so this must be the cause of this) that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are responsible for global warming, and global warming is causing the oceans to rise (stupid, since ice takes up more area than water, so the poles melting should lower oceans, or at least have no noticeable effect, since how much ice is there to how much area of water?) or the flying mongoose of New Guinea to be sterile, or whatever you guys are blaming on the human race these days. Show some proof...shouldn't be that hard, right?

[WHEELAX2]

why don't we all go back and do some real research.. rather than just read an article and comment about it.. find some facts, then come back to the argument with something meaningful.

[enjoi]

Edit - I'm going to make this short:
1. this discussion is not about global warming its about the fact that the current adminisitration is censoring the release of opinions and data to better suit there needs that may or may not be tied to large corporations whose sole goal is to make a profit at a cost to society which outweighs the benefits of their product.[/b]
2. I am not biased twoard the Democratic party for any reason except they are not the Bush Administration whose policies I generally do not like, you can label all you would like though.

You can PM me for the big version if you would like.

[Frndlefire]

Here is my question...is it more dangerous to accept that global warming is a legitimate threat and realize that we are going to have to change things less we cripple our environment to too great a degree that we can't repair it. Or is it more dangerous to not acknowledge it for fear of hurting our economy.


for me personally, we have been living with nature for thousands of years and it is only recently that we have decided we can do whatever we want to it even if that means destroying it. The future isn't going to be a war over fossil fuels, it is going to be a war over drinking water.

[Thrillhouse]

A situation where there is an obvious problem and one side is frustrated because the other side won’t acknowledge the problem… Are we talking about Social Security? (I hope I don’t get in trouble, because enjoi has made it very clear that this thread he started about censorship is only for talking about certain things.)

Here is my question...is it more dangerous to accept that global warming is a legitimate threat and realize that we are going to have to change things less we cripple our environment to too great a degree that we can't repair it. Or is it more dangerous to not acknowledge it for fear of hurting our economy.

That’s a loaded question. Do you really believe that decreasing the rate of CO2 emissions in the next ten years will not have an extremely dramatic effect on the United States and the world’s economy? The “big, bad business owners” will be slightly less rich; but people who work for them will have to pay a lot more to turn on the lights or drive their cars? If the question is going to be framed as saving the environment or having a strong economy, the environment is going to lose as soon as you start explaining to people how much more they will have to pay to power on their TV. We’ve built our economy around fossil fuels which cause pollution; how do you expect an economy as large as ours to suddenly stop or drastically reduce using the fuel that keeps the economy going and still survive? I think most reasonable people would conclude that pollution is bad, although there will be debate as to how bad the problem is; however if we are going to talk about a drastic change in the way we use fossil fuels, we need to talk about effect it will have on our economy; which this 60 minutes report failed to do.


1. this discussion is not about global warming its about the fact that the current adminisitration is censoring the release of opinions and data to better suit there needs that may or may not be tied to large corporations whose sole goal is to make a profit at a cost to society which outweighs the benefits of their product.[/b]


We can only talk about how this administration “censors” people, but not what they are being censored about? Do you have any idea how hypocritical it sounds to so narrowly define a discussion so only one possible conclusion could be drawn, especially when you are throwing around the word censorship as much as you are?

Mr. Hansen is employed by the United States government under a department that is controlled by the President. Maybe, when you finish college you will start to work for yourself and will never have to answer to a boss; however if you don’t, you will learn that you can’t say whatever you want. Journalists, authors, and all types of professionals (including myself) have what they write changed to fit the needs of the people who pay them. It isn’t censorship; it’s editing. If the government really wanted to censor Mr. Hansen, they wouldn’t just soften his language, they would have fired him as soon as he spoke at the University of Iowa, and they wouldn’t have let him do this interview. He’s upset that he isn’t allowed to speak to the media? NASA employs several spokespersons; he’s not being paid to talk to the press in an official role, probably due to the fact that he would be more interested in giving the media his opinion rather than the opinion of his employer.

The people who pay you will always put restrictions on what you can and can’t do. If you don’t like it, you can always quit.

[Frndlefire]

That’s a loaded question. Do you really believe that decreasing the rate of CO2 emissions in the next ten years will not have an extremely dramatic effect on the United States and the world’s economy? The “big, bad business owners” will be slightly less rich; but people who work for them will have to pay a lot more to turn on the lights or drive their cars? If the question is going to be framed as saving the environment or having a strong economy, the environment is going to lose as soon as you start explaining to people how much more they will have to pay to power on their TV. We’ve built our economy around fossil fuels which cause pollution; how do you expect an economy as large as ours to suddenly stop or drastically reduce using the fuel that keeps the economy going and still survive? I think most reasonable people would conclude that pollution is bad, although there will be debate as to how bad the problem is; however if we are going to talk about a drastic change in the way we use fossil fuels, we need to talk about effect it will have on our economy; which this 60 minutes report failed to do.my point was not that I think we should make some sudden and drastic change that would cripple our economy. What I am saying is that I believe it is dangerous for us to deny that it is even a problem, that global warming even exists. It may not be a problem that you, I, or perhaps even our children would have to face, but it may be a legitimate threat to the future of our planet. For us to just sit around and say "no, no, I need absolute proof before I am going to think about making changes" just seems negligent.
Mr. Hansen is employed by the United States government under a department that is controlled by the President. Maybe, when you finish college you will start to work for yourself and will never have to answer to a boss; however if you don’t, you will learn that you can’t say whatever you want. Journalists, authors, and all types of professionals (including myself) have what they write changed to fit the needs of the people who pay them. It isn’t censorship; it’s editing. If the government really wanted to censor Mr. Hansen, they wouldn’t just soften his language, they would have fired him as soon as he spoke at the University of Iowa, and they wouldn’t have let him do this interview. He’s upset that he isn’t allowed to speak to the media? NASA employs several spokespersons; he’s not being paid to talk to the press in an official role, probably due to the fact that he would be more interested in giving the media his opinion rather than the opinion of his employer.While I agree that the President and his administration has the power to handle, disseminate, or stifle whatever information that want to our of their research departments, does it make it right for them to do so because the results of that research may challenge their publicly held position?

[Thrillhouse]

my point was not that I think we should make some sudden and drastic change that would cripple our economy. What I am saying is that I believe it is dangerous for us to deny that it is even a problem, that global warming even exists. It may not be a problem that you, I, or perhaps even our children would have to face, but it may be a legitimate threat to the future of our planet. For us to just sit around and say "no, no, I need absolute proof before I am going to think about making changes" just seems negligent.

Mr. Hansen is saying if we don’t act within 10 years, it will be too late. Do you not agree with that?

[Frndlefire]

Mr. Hansen is saying if we don’t act within 10 years, it will be too late. Do you not agree with that?
I'm not a scientist. I'm not the one who has devoted his life to studying this sort of stuff...I have no idea. I do agree however that we shouldn't be sitting on our haunches pretending like we don't have to care...

[Thrillhouse]

While I agree that the President and his administration has the power to handle, disseminate, or stifle whatever information that want to our of their research departments, does it make it right for them to do so because the results of that research may challenge their publicly held position?
From what I read in the article, they weren’t trying to keep the information from the public, they were trying to make it not sound as bad as Mr. Hansen made it sound. Mr. Hansen doesn’t think its right, but I’m sure the people who own businesses which rely of fossil fuels are happy the government is taking some of the doom and gloom out of his message.
I'm not a scientist. I'm not the one who has devoted his life to studying this sort of stuff...I have no idea. I do agree however that we shouldn't be sitting on our haunches pretending like we don't have to care...

I’m not a scientist or an economist; but I don’t think I need to be one to realize that pollution is bad for the environment and at the same time realize that we can’t change the economy we’ve built for over 100 years in 10 years. I enjoy nature. I like to go hiking, look at a view from the top of a mountain, and see wild animals in their natural habitat. But I also like to go home afterwards, take a hot shower, open a cold beer, and watch The Simpson’s. If the environmentalist are right, it seems we have to choose one over the other…

[enjoi]

A situation where there is an obvious problem and one side is frustrated because the other side won’t acknowledge the problem… Are we talking about Social Security? (I hope I don’t get in trouble, because enjoi has made it very clear that this thread he started about censorship is only for talking about certain things.)

:rolleyes:

That’s a loaded question. Do you really believe that decreasing the rate of CO2 emissions in the next ten years will not have an extremely dramatic effect on the United States and the world’s economy? The “big, bad business owners” will be slightly less rich; but people who work for them will have to pay a lot more to turn on the lights or drive their cars? If the question is going to be framed as saving the environment or having a strong economy, the environment is going to lose as soon as you start explaining to people how much more they will have to pay to power on their TV. We’ve built our economy around fossil fuels which cause pollution; how do you expect an economy as large as ours to suddenly stop or drastically reduce using the fuel that keeps the economy going and still survive? I think most reasonable people would conclude that pollution is bad, although there will be debate as to how bad the problem is; however if we are going to talk about a drastic change in the way we use fossil fuels, we need to talk about effect it will have on our economy; which this 60 minutes report failed to do.

I know Frndle said it, but of course no one is expecting anyone to drastically cut emissions, or gasoline out. It will take a long time to do it. If we start sooner the less worse our enviroment gets.

How is it that Sweden and Greenland are going to be able to go all Green by a definete date (if I recall in around 10 years), and yet the most powerful country in the world can't?

We can only talk about how this administration “censors” people, but not what they are being censored about? Do you have any idea how hypocritical it sounds to so narrowly define a discussion so only one possible conclusion could be drawn, especially when you are throwing around the word censorship as much as you are?

So how many times have I told someone to be quiet or not not encourage political discussion? How many times have censored anyone in a political discussion, because I didn't like their opinion?

Mr. Hansen is employed by the United States government under a department that is controlled by the President. Maybe, when you finish college you will start to work for yourself and will never have to answer to a boss; however if you don’t, you will learn that you can’t say whatever you want. Journalists, authors, and all types of professionals (including myself) have what they write changed to fit the needs of the people who pay them. It isn’t censorship; it’s editing. If the government really wanted to censor Mr. Hansen, they wouldn’t just soften his language, they would have fired him as soon as he spoke at the University of Iowa, and they wouldn’t have let him do this interview. He’s upset that he isn’t allowed to speak to the media? NASA employs several spokespersons; he’s not being paid to talk to the press in an official role, probably due to the fact that he would be more interested in giving the media his opinion rather than the opinion of his employer.

The people who pay you will always put restrictions on what you can and can’t do. If you don’t like it, you can always quit.
Because simply put this is a matter of importance and clearly a big warning sign, and it is not some crackpot, as stated he is in the top of his field. So what if the Bush administration gives him his check, its a matter of importance. I was using this article as an example of the current administration manipulating information to achieve their needs/goals and not what is necesarely good for the country.

[Hooligan]

What has Science ever done for us? I says its witchcraft! BURN THEM ALL!!!

(Hooligan fixes his Puritan hat, which became dislodged with his rant, fixes his buckles, and realizes that yelling is against the Puritan rules...oops)

[twin58]

It isn’t censorship; it’s editing.

From what I read in the article, they weren't trying to keep the information from the public,...

Yes, it's censorship, and yes, they were trying to keep the information from the public.

I didn't see "60 Minutes" on Sunday night. Did they talk about George Deutsch? And who, you might ask, is George Deutsch? George Deutsch (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=george+deutsch+scientist&btnG=Google+Searchgeorge deutsch scientist) is the 24-year old Bush toady, thought to be a recent graduate of Texas A&M, inserted by the administration into NASA as a public affairs officer. His function there was to alter the works of NASA's senior scientists for, among other things, their "failure" to mention intelligent design. It develops that he wasn't what he said he was. (http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/breaking-news-george-deutsch-did-not.html)

The news was made public thanks to the work done by Nick Anthis at his website The Scientific Activist.

NASA Science Censor Resigns (http://scientificactivist.blogspot.com/2006/02/nasa-science-censor-resigns.html)

It's official. George Deutsch, the Bush appointee and science censor at NASA who lied about graduating from Texas A&M University, has resigned thanks to the efforts of a little website that some of you may have heard of. Andrew Revkin of The New York Times reports (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/08/politics/08nasa.html)....

Hansen is really on to something here, and instead of the story being about a 24-year-old lying, it should be about this: how did this guy, who already had dubious qualifications, make it into NASA with such an obvious lie on his resume? To work for a federal agency, including NASA, extensive background checks are usually required. If I was able to uncover the truth about Deutsch in one phone call, then he must have been placed in his current position without any investigation, due to his loyal service on the Bush presidential campaign.

Google for "george deutsch big bang" (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&lr=&ie=ISO-8859-1&q=george+deutsch+big+bang&btnG=Search)

NASA Watch: George Deutsch, Up and Coming PAO Politico (http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_deutsch.html)

NASA Chief Backs Agency Openness, NY Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/04/science/04climate.html?hp&ex=1139029200&en=6a15af4274e8942d&ei=5094&partner=homepage)

"In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times."

"... The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements."

"... The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

OK, this mole has been discovered. How many others has the Bush administration planted in other agencies to alter the works of senior scientists?

[marflax33]

What has Science ever done for us? I says its witchcraft! BURN THEM ALL!!!

(Hooligan fixes his Puritan hat, which became dislodged with his rant, fixes his buckles, and realizes that yelling is against the Puritan rules...oops)

lol. so true. what i dont understand is this... how the hell are they figuring all this global warming and all that fun stuff, but they cant predict the weather tommorow?!?!?! i mean, they said it was going to be thunderstorms today yesterday... what was it??? sunny all day, with a quick 5 minute springtime shower... good call. now they think they can predict something 10 years in advance??? bs. how about the cooling trend in the 80s? all the top scientists thought that one up too, but did it ever happen? NO. if anything, it got warmer. the scientists are dumb, and the enviroment and world are unpredictable.

[enjoi]

What has Science ever done for us? I says its witchcraft! BURN THEM ALL!!!

(Hooligan fixes his Puritan hat, which became dislodged with his rant, fixes his buckles, and realizes that yelling is against the Puritan rules...oops)
Nay brother it is alright to unleash your wrath upon those who have not seen the true light of our pure ways brother.
lol. so true. what i dont understand is this... how the hell are they figuring all this global warming and all that fun stuff, but they cant predict the weather tommorow?!?!?! i mean, they said it was going to be thunderstorms today yesterday... what was it??? sunny all day, with a quick 5 minute springtime shower... good call. now they think they can predict something 10 years in advance??? bs. how about the cooling trend in the 80s? all the top scientists thought that one up too, but did it ever happen? NO. if anything, it got warmer. the scientists are dumb, and the enviroment and world are unpredictable.
I'm not being rude here, but I learned about this in Sci101.

Weather can change at a moments notice, but temperature you can forecast rather accurately (my teacher was a republican if that makes a difference).

[marflax33]

Weather can change at a moments notice, but temperature you can forecast rather accurately (my teacher was a republican if that makes a difference).

temps easy. just look a few hours west(or wherever the weather comes from in your area). whatever the temp is there, it will most likely be very close in a few hours where you are.

[wolfie8914]

and big business is bad? (pardon the alliteration). Big Business provides jobs. Hows about we solve this on a global scale, and not one that will cripple some economies and advance others (aka Kyoto and China)

You guys love to throw around the words "big buisness" and "industry" like their bad. I think it's one of the dumber things I've seen on here, and something I still don't understand. Why are you against US business?


You could have shortened your response to a sentence or two, and leave out all the sarcasm. You take something I said and blow it out of proportion, and make up something else that I didn't say.

100's of scientists. Good thing that there is only like 500 scientists, right? I want some proof. And try to lay off the winikipedia bs.

as for the free flow of ideas, it's one scientist. Also, is this article written like a statement of fact or an opinion piece? I could quote Rush Limbaugh and say that's a statement of fact, but I won't. Because I'm not a moron. Nor am I that caught up in my political party that I'll do anything and say anything to put a dent in the other side. <cou(enjoi)gh>

as for proven, it hasn't been even proven 50%, or 10%. Either it's proven, or it's not. And who's accepting it as fact if it's not proven? If you accept it as fact, does that make it any more of a fact you any less of an idiot for believing something that's not true?


He may, but that doesn't mean that he's right.

There is caring about the environment, and then caring about it to the point that you hurt people and the country. We could all go back to the middle ages. Heck, we could all kill ourselves. That sure as heck would save the environment.

You want a crappy economy but great environment? You CAN'T have industry and a pristine environment (like you're suggesting) without industry. So....millions of american jobs, or some forest land that there isn't anything particularly special about?

Also, go ahead and prove (proof, not this happened and this happened, so this must be the cause of this) that humans are responsible for the rise in CO2 levels, and CO2 levels are responsible for global warming, and global warming is causing the oceans to rise (stupid, since ice takes up more area than water, so the poles melting should lower oceans, or at least have no noticeable effect, since how much ice is there to how much area of water?) or the flying mongoose of New Guinea to be sterile, or whatever you guys are blaming on the human race these days. Show some proof...shouldn't be that hard, right?

You have completely missed the point.

The government is censoring its employees—end of story. The argument is not whether his beleifs are "true," but whether it is wrong on the part of ole Dubya. (yes i think it is wrong)

[JoshM]

You have completely missed the point.

The government is censoring its employees—end of story. The argument is not whether his beleifs are "true," but whether it is wrong on the part of ole Dubya. (yes i think it is wrong)
Not only that, but they're censoring employees who hold very important jobs.

TheKob, I actually agree with you to a certain point about global warming. I don't think we have enough evidence to say it's all caused by humans. I believe the earth goes in cycles, and this is another one of those cycles; except it's being magnified by humans.

But that doesn't mean we should just ignore scientists. Not only ignore, censor them. This is a very important issue and it deserves to be looked at thoroughly.

[Thrillhouse]

I know Frndle said it, but of course no one is expecting anyone to drastically cut emissions, or gasoline out. It will take a long time to do it. If we start sooner the less worse our enviroment gets.

Did you even read the article you posted? Mr. Hansen seems to think we should. You started this whole debate because this Administration isn’t letting him say it the way he wants.

How is it that Sweden and Greenland are going to be able to go all Green by a definete date (if I recall in around 10 years), and yet the most powerful country in the world can't?

Well, they don’t have the power needs that the most powerful country in the world does, nor do they have the industry the United States does. We can take Mr. Hansen’s advice and get our emissions down in 10 years, but it will cost a lot of money.

So how many times have I told someone to be quiet or not not encourage political discussion? How many times have censored anyone in a political discussion, because I didn't like their opinion?

You have never censored anyone to my knowledge unless they were violating TLF rules, which you have to do as a moderator. My point is that you didn’t seem to have a problem discussing global warming until TheKOB asked you to back up your response to his post with some solid facts. All of a sudden we were off topic because we were debating the very subject Mr. Hansen was being censored on. You told us we should only be discussing “the fact that the current adminisitration is censoring the release of opinions and data to better suit there needs that may or may not be tied to large corporations whose sole goal is to make a profit at a cost to society which outweighs the benefits of their product.” I would say that’s about as close to censorship as replacing “uncertainty” with “significant remaining uncertainty.”

Because simply put this is a matter of importance and clearly a big warning sign, and it is not some crackpot, as stated he is in the top of his field. So what if the Bush administration gives him his check, its a matter of importance. I was using this article as an example of the current administration manipulating information to achieve their needs/goals and not what is necesarely good for the country.

Again, this guy says in 10 years we need be producing less greenhouse gas then we are today. Now, one would assume that our energy needs increase everyday, so in 10 years we will need more energy than we do today. There are ways to make energy without fossil fuels, but they are more expensive. (Am I correct in assuming that both you and Mr. Hansen feel nuclear power is out of the question?) So, if we follow Mr. Hansen’s advice, we will need to make more energy at a higher cost; the brunt of which will be paid by consumers. Is making people pay more for energy “necessarily good for the country?”
If he really feels it’s so important, he needs to give up his (what I’m assuming is a plush) office in New York and his ability to drop the “I work for NASA.” bomb on chicks and work for the private sector. Until then, anything that is published as the opinion of this administration will be just that.

If you really want Mr. Hansen’s opinion out there, ask your local Congressmen to subpoena him to testify at a hearing. He can say whatever he wants, under oath, and it would become part of the congressional record.

What has Science ever done for us? I says its witchcraft! BURN THEM ALL!!!

Those widgets at the bottom of Guinness pub cans that release CO2 into the beer (and atmosphere) are pretty cool.

[Frndlefire]

(Am I correct in assuming that both you and Mr. Hansen feel nuclear power is out of the question?)
probably not. Nuclear energy technology is getting a lot better than it used to be. People are still working under the assumptions based on old systems from the early days that produced a lot of waste and such, but new designs are probably the best way for us to make the energy we require (at least with the tech we have today). Pebble Bed reactors are also a lot safer than previous types.

[ColtsLax]

As with sweden, 60% taxes dont hurt either. Thats a lot of cash to throw at a problem.

Once again. Show me the document. Show me what was cut out. There is a difference between lightening and censoring. What they did was soften the language of the document, at least this is what i take from the evidence given. So until i can see what parts they cut out, this is not censoring.

[wolfie8914]

As with sweden, 60% taxes dont hurt either. Thats a lot of cash to throw at a problem.

Once again. Show me the document. Show me what was cut out. There is a difference between lightening and censoring. What they did was soften the language of the document, at least this is what i take from the evidence given. So until i can see what parts they cut out, this is not censoring.

You really do refuse to believe anything unless it is put right in front of your face.

"So until i can physically see the air, it does not exist" —thats what you sound like

[ColtsLax]

You really do refuse to believe anything unless it is put right in front of your face.

"So until i can physically see the air, it does not exist" —thats what you sound like
No, because we know that air is made of of a combination of Nitrogen, Oxygen, Hydrogen, and other gases. we can prove it without a doubt.

But, if your going to come on here, and make a statement, you better be able to provide some, keyword some, proof to back up your claims. When it comes to politics, yes, i refuse to form an opinion on something unless i have all the fact in front of me.

[TheKOB]

You really do refuse to believe anything unless it is put right in front of your face.

"So until i can physically see the air, it does not exist" —thats what you sound like

If they're limiting what he can say and who he can talk to, how was he able to talk about it to this reporter who projects the Bush admin in a less than positive light?

Ponder amongst yourselves, Thrill Colt and I are gonna save up for a Dodge SRT 10 to do doughnuts in this guy's lawn.

http://autos.msn.com/advice/article.aspx?contentid=4019506

[WHEELAX2]

hey everyone.. the earth is flat

[enjoi]

Update: http://www.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/science/31nasa.html?ex=1301461200&en=96dbaa10c80b5ebc&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss

WASHINGTON, March 30 — Two months after NASA's top climate scientist complained that political operatives in the agency's press office were trying to censor his views on global warming, Administrator Michael D. Griffin issued a new communications policy on Thursday that he called a "commitment to openness."

The policy, which details the role of those who release information to the public directly or through the news media, ensures that NASA scientists and engineers are free to discuss their work in public and state their opinions, Dr. Griffin said. When stating a personal opinion, he continued, they should make clear that they are speaking for themselves and not for the agency.

In a presentation to employees, and later during a telephone news conference, Dr. Griffin and Shana Dale, the deputy administrator, said the policy replaced a code, last updated in 1991, that was "not clear enough or articulate enough."

The agency came under fire when James E. Hansen, director of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a NASA office, told The New York Times in late January that the Bush administration had tried to stop him from speaking out after he gave a lecture in December calling for prompt reductions in emissions of greenhouse gases linked to global warming.

Dr. Hansen and several other employees of the agency said administration appointees in the public affairs office had demanded to review his lectures and publications in advance. In addition, he said, senior agency officials sought the right to stand in for him in interviews with reporters.

Other scientists also expressed concern when political appointees altered news releases and Internet presentations against their wishes.

After a barrage of complaints from lawmakers and scientific organizations, Dr. Griffin appointed a 12-member group of senior NASA scientists and public affairs officials to draft a new public communications policy.

In an interview on Thursday, Dr. Hansen said that the revised policy was "definitely better" than before and that his latest dealings with NASA public affairs had been much improved.

"I'm very optimistic," he said. "Things have changed dramatically since this became a public issue. This has been a healthy exercise, and hopefully similar things will happen at other agencies that have had similar problems."

Dr. Griffin said political appointees would continue to work at NASA, as is customary under any administration, but would not unduly influence the new openness policy. Dean Acosta, a spokesman, said there were five political appointees among the agency's 300-member public affairs staff, and about 18 in all positions throughout NASA.

In the news conference, Dr. Griffin also addressed recent criticism suggesting that at a Rotary Club gala in Texas last week, he endorsed Representative Tom DeLay for re-election. Mr. DeLay, who gave up his post as House majority leader in September after being indicted in a campaign finance case, represents a district that includes the Johnson Space Center in Houston.

The NASA chief has said that although he is entitled to issue political endorsements under certain circumstances, he will not. On Thursday he said he had not endorsed Mr. DeLay at the gathering but rather, in response to a gracious introduction from the congressman, had praised his support for the space program. While confirming his words, quoted in The Houston Chronicle, Dr. Griffin added that they were not as precise as they should have been and had been "grossly misinterpreted."

"The space program," Dr. Griffin said at the gala, "has had no better friend in its entire existence than Tom DeLay. He's still with us, and we need to keep him there."

Dr. Griffin said Thursday that he had meant keeping Mr. DeLay's support for the space program.

"I regret the inartful choice of words," he said. "I'm not endorsing anybody. I don't intend to."
Good to see some change came out of this regardless of your political persuasion.

[wolfie8914]

and big business is bad? (pardon the alliteration). Big Business provides jobs. Hows about we solve this on a global scale, and not one that will cripple some economies and advance others (aka Kyoto and China)

You guys love to throw around the words "big buisness" and "industry" like their bad. I think it's one of the dumber things I've seen on here, and something I still don't understand. Why are you against US business?


Well thankyou for rambling. Anywhoo you just made up the fact that I said big business is bad. You honestly did just create that. Big business can be a great thing...just not when you have a money hungry monkey running the show.

I am just saying that it makes perfect sense for him to censor these peeps. Its like this....

Joe owns a sandwhich shop. Bob, one of the workers at the sandwich shop discovers that sandwiches cause cancer. Bob starts telling people that sandwiches start causing cancer. Joe silences Bob in fear that Bob is diminishing his profits.

Why wouldn't Joe silence Bob? It doesnt make sense. You cant blame ole George for wantin' to please his ole Texas cronies.

[wolfie8914]

Public Opinion is a powerful thing. I guess President Bush was reading on TLF and got the picture...

[TheKOB]

Well thankyou for rambling. Anywhoo you just made up the fact that I said big business is bad. You honestly did just create that. Big business can be a great thing...just not when you have a money hungry monkey running the show.

I am just saying that it makes perfect sense for him to censor these peeps. Its like this....

Joe owns a sandwhich shop. Bob, one of the workers at the sandwich shop discovers that sandwiches cause cancer. Bob starts telling people that sandwiches start causing cancer. Joe silences Bob in fear that Bob is diminishing his profits.

Why wouldn't Joe silence Bob? It doesnt make sense. You cant blame ole George for wantin' to please his ole Texas cronies.

you mentioned big business and oil in a negative context. I quoted you.

again with the word cronies. now are you going to say that I'm making that up?

So you don't have any proof, you're just saying it happened because it makes sense in your little universe. Stellar...now who's making stuff up?

[Coach_Goldberg]

Bush can read? or does TLF have a book on tape format?

[TheKOB]

Bush can read? or does TLF have a book on tape format?

Isn't it sad that ya'll have to make these kind of cracks about a guy who looks like a monkey and is apparently pretty dumb, but your guy wasn't elected?

I hope it makes you feel better, taking the "holier than thou" approach.

[wolfie8914]

Isn't it sad that ya'll have to make these kind of cracks about a guy who looks like a monkey and is apparently pretty dumb, but your guy wasn't elected?

I hope it makes you feel better, taking the "holier than thou" approach.


Well, first I cant vote...so no, my guy wasnt elected.

Second, these kinds of remarks can be made simply because there is a pretty solid consensus that Bush is a poor president—and well probably not "pretty dumb," he is still not smart enough to be the president.

Sure im a pretty smart kid (well id like to think so) but that doesnt mean that I can be an astophysicist at NASA.

Either way you look at it, Yale is a hard school to get into (or buy your way into) but Bush had a C-average. Take that how you please, but thats the facts.

[TheKOB]

Second, these kinds of remarks can be made simply because there is a pretty solid consensus that Bush is a poor president—and well probably not "pretty dumb," he is still not smart enough to be the president..

Proof would be if he ran again for being a poor president. As for not smart enough, I believe that's something that you guys are making up.

Either way you look at it, Yale is a hard school to get into (or buy your way into) but Bush had a C-average. Take that how you please, but thats the facts.

Which of these statements can't be applied to Kerry again?

[Frndlefire]

Which of these statements can't be applied to Kerry again?Kerry was lame... the dems need to get their heads out of their collective butts...

[enjoi]

Proof would be if he ran again for being a poor president. As for not smart enough, I believe that's something that you guys are making up.



Which of these statements can't be applied to Kerry again?
One got smarter over time and wasn't a failed businessman and didn't cheat to win elections twice???

:ICEBURN:

Regardless, nothing is going to change, and Bush is our President not Kerry. We don't need a Kerry vs. Bush flamewar when the election has been over for 2 years.

[TheKOB]

One got smarter over time and wasn't a failed businessman and didn't cheat to win elections twice???


Yeah, you've got a point. Or at least you would if any of that crap were actually true.

:dryiceburn:

[JoshM]

Which of these statements can't be applied to Kerry again?
This is not relevant. Kerry has nothing to do with this. We're discussing what Bush has done wrong.

[ohlax51]

KOB why do have to take every criticism of bush personally? Its one thing to support someone but in your eyes does he have no faults? Even the most diehard conservatives will admit hes made some mistakes.

[TheKOB]

This is not relevant. Kerry has nothing to do with this. We're discussing what Bush has done wrong.

It's as relevent as insulting someone's intellegence, and I was responding to a post that could describe Kerry as well as Bush. I was merely responding to 3rd grade comments of him being "stupid".
KOB why do have to take every criticism of bush personally? Its one thing to support someone but in your eyes does he have no faults? Even the most diehard conservatives will admit hes made some mistakes.

I don't take it personally, I just find it rather moronic when the best counterpoint they can come up with is 'he's stupid and looks like a monkey'. If you want to discuss his faults, go ahead.

This originally started when wolfie started back in with the brilliant counterargument of "bush is stupid".

[enjoi]

This is not relevant. Kerry has nothing to do with this. We're discussing what Bush has done wrong.
Exactly, so stop posting about him (Kerry).

[-Cicero-]

one thing about Bush that pisses me off is the way he brings religion into the whitehouse, I mean what kinda bull is that. And in the whitehouse the ultimate scorning is when people asked you why you missed bible study.

Bush is trying to put a safety net for himself when he makes a wrong choice(which happens alot). He is really a coward underneath that tailored suit of his and the only words that come out of his mouth are the ones dick cheney feeds him

[wolfie8914]

Bush is trying to put a safety net for himself when he makes a wrong choice(which happens alot). He is really a coward underneath that tailored suit of his and the only words that come out of his mouth are the ones dick cheney feeds him


Well not only Cheney...talk about Karl Rove, who is actually quite a genius when it comes to politics. And Andy Card, but he just resigned so...

[TheKOB]

Exactly, so stop posting about him (Kerry).

I would, except he was the other person who was nominated for Pres by the Democratic party, and all the things you guys are throwing out can be applied to him just as well.
one thing about Bush that pisses me off is the way he brings religion into the whitehouse, I mean what kinda bull is that. And in the whitehouse the ultimate scorning is when people asked you why you missed bible study.

So, once you're elected president you're supposed to let go of your values? I didn't know that was in the constitution...president must be an atheist....
Well not only Cheney...talk about Karl Rove, who is actually quite a genius when it comes to politics. And Andy Card, but he just resigned so...

Bush is trying to put a safety net for himself when he makes a wrong choice(which happens alot). He is really a coward underneath that tailored suit of his and the only words that come out of his mouth are the ones dick cheney feeds him

Great job bringing the discussion to a new low. So much for political discourse.

[Frndlefire]

I would, except he was the other person who was nominated for Pres by the Democratic party, and all the things you guys are throwing out can be applied to him just as well.
except the difference is that Bush is still a very important, very public political figure...what the hell is Kerry now? I know he was a joke...you're not going to find me defending him, so, he is less relevant than Bush

[TheKOB]

except the difference is that Bush is still a very important, very public political figure...what the hell is Kerry now? I know he was a joke...you're not going to find me defending him, so, he is less relevant than Bush

My point wasn't really directed at you, more at those people that make negative comments that could be directed at most political figures, including the person he was running against and that they supported. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

Anyways, this thread is pretty off topic, so I'll be moving on barring any mature discussion in place of this monkey poo chucking contest.