Hi Platt,
>> Steve: >> James Hansen says he has been censored. You say "To state or imply >> that advocates of global warming have been censored is absurd." Okay, I >> will write him a letter and tell him that though he thinks he was censored, >> he actually wasn't because that would be absurd. I'm sure he'll be >> relieved. > >For a guy whose complaints were written up in the NY Times, the Washington >Post and broadcast on 60 minutes as well as many other liberal media >outlets, the charge of censorship appears ludicrous. Steve: His complaint isn't that the press is censoring him. His reports to Congress were changed by the White House. >> I now know that this didn't actually happen since you say it would be >> absurd, but I hope we can agree hypothetically that if a scientist had been >> asked by Congress to write a report for Congress on global warming, and the >> message of the report he wrote was changed by non- scientist White House >> officials, it would be immoral. Thank goodness that could never happen in >> our country. > >Hypothetically I hope we can agree it's immoral for a scientist to skew >data to fit a political agenda. > Steve: Of course. Platt: >Did 60 minutes mention that Hansen got $250,000 from the Heinz foundation, >run by the wife of the liberal candidate for president, John Kerry? Steve: I don't think so. Is it relevant? >Of course, you are free to draw whatever conclusions you wish. My own >conclusion is that no administration, conservative or liberal, is >obligated to support dubious science. Steve: I can't see why anyone would want to support dubious science either. Do you have evidence that Hansen's work is dubious? Regards, Steve Moq_Discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
