The Scientific Climate

If a scientist holds a view that isn’t accepted by the loudest commenters, then it is OK for a Democratic governer to take the position that person holds, make it a government job, and then remove that person in order to put someone in that the loudest commenters approve of. This because the “state needs a consistent message”.

If a scientist holds a view that isn’t accepted by the Federal agency that he works for, then it is “the heavy hand of censorship” that is “creating an atmosphere of intimidation and fear” for someone working under a Republican President to make a scientist wait a few months to publish what he wanted to publish right then.

I’m glad I got that cleared up.

Hat Tip: Q & O

7 Comments

  1. HMT says:

    “ok” and “not ok” are completely relative terms. Meaning they must relate to a certain imperative… which is never really truth.

    I, myself, leave this fodder to O’Reilly, Oberman, and the likes.

    metal time.

  2. Phelps says:

    If “nothing is good and nothing is bad” is your life philosophy, then you forfiet. That’s your choice, but know that I will mock you for it.

  3. HMt says:

    what do I forfiet? struggle? the search for the truth? I can tell you that my experience proves not the latter..

    it’s ok to have preferences phelpsie, in this case you prefer to point out the hypocrisy of the statements of one over the other. That’s cool, and based on which lense you are looking at it through, it holds well. A perfectly factual argument.

    It is a relative truth.

  4. Phelps says:

    You forfiet at life, buddy. You don’t get a score, you just get an “n/a”. Find some ethos, man. And the hypocrisy doesn’t even matter as much as simply pointing out that this is a political/religious argument, not a scientific one. All the science has been boiled out.

  5. HMt says:

    where do you stand on the argument?

  6. Phelps says:

    The AGW thesis? I’m agin’ it.

  7. DA says:

    It’s not really hypocrisy. Democrats and loud scientists have your best interests at heart (read: want to take care of you and wuv you and hold you and squeeze you–some more literally than others). Republicans do not. It would be hypocrisy not to treat them differently.

    this is a political/religious argument, not a scientific one.

    Yeah. And by now “science” means about as much as “unconstitutional” does. It’s hard to imagine that changing.