Chronology Current Month Current Thread Current Date
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] [Date Index] [Thread Index] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Date Prev] [Date Next]

Re: [Phys-l] Censorship of science by politicians

But the points being made were that various influences caused problems with
the ecosystem. For example subsidence was mentioned. This is not
conjecture, but hard fact. It happens all over the Houston area due to
pumping wells. When the pumping stops, the subsidence stops. Also they
crossed out most every line that concerned sea level rise including post
glacial sea level rise. The conclusion that the Galveston Bay system was
created as a result of the post glacial sea level rise is indisputable, yet
it was crossed out.

The fact that the author was told not to reference global warming was a
clear signal that they have a political ax to grind. So there were
practically no direct references to global warmng, but there were references
to well known factual sea level rise which were deleted. The chapter has
already been self censored. This is similar to the censorship of Copericus
or Galileo. Then why were all of the references deleted? This is a signal
that they wish to make the article appear like pure conjecture without any
scholarship behind it.

Science is about interpretation and prediction based on factual evidence.
Sea level rise does endanger the bay system, and indeed the entire city of
Galveston. In the VA tidewater area some cities are preparing for
consequence of sea level rise with the help of consultants. But the
consultants have to censor their comments and never mention that it is due
to global warming because then they would lose the contract.

In either case the chapter is clearly entitled "State of the Bay". This
title would include possible and probable problems as well as the current
state of the bay. The very first deletion is not unfounded speculation but
just saying that the current bay is due to glacial sea level rise, and that
the current high rate of rise will make changes. No changes were specified!
Then what is wrong with "As sea level rise continues, management of wetland
resources will need to address changing conditions." or how about "The
contrast between these 2 subbays provides documentation of the impace humans
have had on wetlands." They allowed the previous sentence which stated that
wetlands are growing where minimal development has occurred, so why is the
deleted sentence wrong? It is merely emphasizing the FACT that the human
influence alters the state of the bay. They allowed the statement that
current laws do not take into account the migratory nature, but they
wouldn't allow a sentence which points out that sea level rise has to be
accounted for. Essentially the bias is that questioning current laws is OK,
but any suggestion that more management might be needed is a no-no. In
other words doing away with existing laws is OK, but any oblique suggestion
that other ones might need to be made is not. And any problem with sea
level rise is to be deleted because it implies there might be global warmng.
The author did not suggest what the changes would be (speculation) or what
should be done about them. It is indisputable that sea level rise will
alter the bay.

Other researchers have supported the Rice Prof against the anti global
warming agency. The head of the agency was selected by Perry who is known
to appoint anti-evolutionists and anti-global warming people because or
their anti-scientific views.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX


After reading the article a second time - I still have to
challenge the idea that the state was specifically targeting
global warming. Looking at the remarks that were deleted
(crossed out in red), the overwhelming majority were related
to development in the coastal region studied - not global
warming per se. Again, the authors comments about development
were almost parenthetical - not coming forth directly from
data but rather from inference. If a student of mine wrote a
paper with so many unsupported interjections thrown in -
regardless of topic - I would deal with it accordingly.

Bob at PC

-----Original Message-----
From: phys-l-bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu [mailto:phys-l-
bounces@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu] On Behalf Of John Clement
Sent: Tuesday, October 11, 2011 8:43 AM
To: 'Forum for Physics Educators'
Subject: Re: [Phys-l] Censorship of science by politicians

The state took out factual information about sea level rise. The
author had
already self censored the article.

"Lester said TCEQ officials made it clear the agency is
uncomfortable
with
any references to human-caused climate change.

"We stayed away from human-induced climate change, but we
felt like we
had
to talk about sea-level rise," he said. "After all, it's
been happening
for
12,000 years. We were surprised the data on sea-level rise became a
contentious issue."

TCEQ also deleted any references to human-caused change in other
contexts,
including a reference to human activity being responsible
for wetlands
destruction."

So the political climate is not only producing censorship
of facts, but
also
self censorhip. For a good article on how new scientific
paradigms are
rejected and become political fodder see the latest "Physics Today".
So
what were the "unsupported interpretations"????? The snippet of the
paper
presented did not show any. My eternal question is "How do you know
that?"

John M. Clement
Houston, Tx


Basically the state struck out material each time he went
from factual statements to unsuported interpretation.

Bob at PC

________________________________________

Go to:
http://www.chron.com/news/houston-texas/article/Professor-says
-state-agency-
censored-article-2211691.php

The political appointees are censoring an official report to
conform to the
conservative anti-global warming position.

John M. Clement
Houston, TX

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l

_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l
_______________________________________________
Forum for Physics Educators
Phys-l@carnot.physics.buffalo.edu
https://carnot.physics.buffalo.edu/mailman/listinfo/phys-l