

Government suspends biologist over 2006 report on dead polar bears - brazzy
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/29/science/earth/29polar.html?_r=1

======
bfe
The best way to read this article is to start at the end and read backwards. I
didn't at first recognize the recently and Orwellianly rebranded name (in the
wake of disastrous publicity) of the federal government's agency that's
supposed to be in charge of regulating companies involved in offshore
drilling, but this is the same agency whose personnel has recently been
implicated in not just being figuratively in bed with, but literally having
sex with, people from the offshore drilling companies they're supposed to be
regulating (and snorting cocaine with them too). You just can't make this
stuff up.

And so extreme is the apparent regulatory capture that a scientist who works
for the agency and reports seeing dead polar bears gets interrogated and then
suspended by his employer.

[http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/10/52243/oil-companies-
ga...](http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2008/09/10/52243/oil-companies-gave-sex-
drinks.html)

<http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/11/washington/11royalty.html>

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/09...](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-
dyn/content/article/2008/09/10/AR2008091001829.html)

~~~
bfe
OK sorry to comment on my own comment but I've been reading up on this the
past couple hours and I once again call total bullshit on the Obama
administration.

I made several donations to the Obama campaign but like so many others I have
been terribly disappointed at what a flimsy useless ballsack he has been at
actually walking the walk and even ensuring a halfway decently basic level of
adult functionality in the federal government.

How hard is it after two and a half years in office to have an agency that
isn't still figuratively if not still literally spreading its legs wide open
for the industry it's supposed to be regulating.

~~~
brazzy
The US Federal government employs 2.5 million people. Promising significant
changes in such a gigantic organization is one thing, actually achieving them
quite another, no matter how well-meaning or competent one is...

~~~
dantheman
The problem is that one thinks that they can control and manage such a large
organization. There are inherent structural dynamics that will always come to
fore.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really
know about what they imagine the can design.” F. A. Hayek

------
brazzy
And this is the industry lobby's take on that article:
[http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12115/Paging-Warmist-Polar-
Bea...](http://www.climatedepot.com/a/12115/Paging-Warmist-Polar-Bear-Expert-
Charles-Monnett-He-goes-in-hiding--ducks-NYTs-attempt-to-contact-him-Monnett-
did-not-respond-to-a-voicemail-message)

How very eloquent and fact-oriented...

~~~
_delirium
Hmm, climatedepot.com looks pretty a bit... unhinged. Do the various
professors on its parent organization's Board of Advisors
(<http://www.cfact.org/about/1551/CFACT-Board-of-Advisors>) realize they're
running essentially a tabloid? I would think that even if you had skeptical
views on the climate-change debate, you would want your name associated with
publications that take a more serious tone...

~~~
brazzy
I'm sure they have less "unhinged" publications as well. But this site echoes
how a lot of people think, and how those who fund CFACT _want_ them to think.
I doubt anyone works for them without realizing this. Ultimately, their job is
to sway the opinion of the general public into this direction, and I suppose
they see this as covering all their bases.

~~~
bfe
I don't know anything about this particular propaganda site but I have done
research in the past that showed there are a lot of just pure propaganda
machine organizations that get funding from the likes of Exxon Mobil and who
all write off all their budgets and funding for tax-free "education" purposes,
that just spew out the stupidest and most unscientific bullshit you could
possibly imagine. I have interviewed scientists who are quoted in press
releases by these propaganda mills who vehemently protested to me about how
terribly their research had been misrepresented. There is literally nothing to
the entire worldwide "global warming skeptic" movement that is not completely
based on and funded by these well-funded and completely unscientific
propaganda campaigns. I found out the people running these propaganda mills,
who are by the way total morons, are paying themselves in the quarter-million-
dollar range for annual salaries for their Exxon-Mobil and Mellon / Scaife
Foundations funded "educational non-profits". And the reach of their
propaganda bullshit machines is at least enough to brainwash a whole lot of
dupes even on Hacker News to place downvotes in the past eight hours to
anything that discusses global climate without saying that every single
scientist in the entire world is party to a global conspiracy to smother john
fucking galt.

And by the way there are an astonishing number of exactly the same
organizations and exactly the same people in the propaganda machine against
global warming who also raked in millions of dollars in the failed campaign to
convince the world that smoking cigarettes was totally awesome and completely
harmless to human health. Get a fucking clue people. TO YOU HACKER NEWS
DOWNVOTERS: IF YOU THINK GLOBAL WARMING IS NOT REAL YOU HAVE BEEN COMPLETELY
DUPED BY A NOT EVEN VERY SMART PROPAGANDA MACHINE AND YOU ARE NOT A COOL REBEL
SMARTER THAN MOST PEOPLE, YOU ARE A DUMB AND COMPLETELY BRAINWASHED PAWN. Deal
with it.

EDIT TO ADD, funny how nothing I've ever posted on HN before has ever been
downvoted into negative territory except calling out global warming
"skeptics". Good job, you clever and not at all duped rebels who can't be
bothered to try to propose any actual rational thought or commentary in the
process!

EDIT AGAIN to say I am astonished by the sheer volume of downvotes being
rained down on every post in this one HN page without one single comment of
explanation by the downvoters, which is like nothing I've ever seen on Hacker
News. Where are your ovaries and/or balls to explain yourselves, downvoters?

~~~
sorbus
You don't think that the downvotes are due to your tone, or the fact that
you're not really adding anything to the conversation? I enjoy insulting
people who don't believe in climate change as much as anyone, but never in the
context of trying to present my research (note that you claim that your first
paragraph is the result of your research) and never on HN, since it adds
nothing to the conversation and weakens arguments. Complaining about being
downvoted and insulting anyone who downvotes you also tends to be a good way
to get downvoted - adds nothing to the conversation, doesn't make people think
that you're a level-headed person they should listen to.

EDIT: And your comment is now in the positive. Which lets me point out that a
really standard pattern on HN is for comments to be downvoted before being
upvoted - since the first people who get to comments tend to be those who
blindly downvote anything they dislike, and are then followed by the ones who
actually look at comments. Complaining and freaking out about it can only make
it worse.

~~~
bfe
Yeah, the tone was not ideal for persuasive writing. I just found myself
astonished to witness a volume of downvotes, not only on this post but also on
my original post on this page which did not have the same exasperated tone,
that across the board was _orders of magnitude_ greater than anything I've
ever seen on HN, but without a _single comment_ from the downvoters to try to
explain themselves, which really called into question why there are so many
people on HN who have managed to accumulate enough karma to downvote but who
are also both (1) dumb enough to be hostile to every post on the topic of
global warming that doesn't treat it as a made-up conspiracy, and (2) ovary-
less and/or ball-less enough not to offer any explanation why they are
downvoting.

------
iwwr
Not considering this case in particular, but it is rather shameful how every
single unusual weather event (and now 4 polar bears) is being exploited to
promote the global warming political agenda. Not saying that the science is
bad or that the policy objectives are wrong, but there should be more
willingness for objectivity and reasoning.

Extreme events in isolation are saying nothing, the same as the isolated death
of a few bears.

~~~
brazzy
Objectivity and reasoning need on be founded on data, and data is a collection
of single events, unusual or not. All this guy said was "we surveyed A1 square
miles of arctic ocean and found N1 live polar bears and after a storm we
surveyed A2 square miles and found N2 drifting dead bears, so basic arithmetic
gives an estimate of X% of bears getting killed by such a storm in such an
environment." And yeah, the small sample size results in a huge margin of
error, but it's one perfectly legitimate datapoint. What connects it to global
warming is that the environment in question has lately become increasingly
ice-deficient, forcing the bears to swim long distances which is apparently
very dangerous for them.

Global warming skeptics are free to provide their own data, but they seem to
be more intent on personally attacking those who disagree.

Frankly, at this point anyone who claims that global warming isn't happening
is either a paid industry shill or has allowed themselves to be brainwashed by
such because he doesn't want to believe in something that implies his
lifestyle is not sustainable. You can have legitimate arguments about the
extent, speed, and cause of global warming, but claiming that it is not
happening is neither objective nor reasonable given the undisputable evidence
of shrinking glaciers and arctic ice covers.

~~~
farmerbrown
Sure, some degree of global warming is probably happening. The bigger point
here is that the "end-of-the-world" global warming is never going to happen.
That is, the effect size of anthropogenic global warming is apparently small
and does not match the original predictions put forth in the late 1980s. You
can see the data (and complete lack of a rebuttal) here:

[http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-
basic...](http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hansen-1988-prediction-basic.htm)

Note that the observed global temperature anomaly, in black, tracks Scenario
C, a scenario that "assumed a rapid decline in greenhouse gas emissions around
the year 2000." However, during the same period, atmospheric carbon dioxide
increased by approximately 40 parts per million. [1]

So, where does that leave us? It leaves us with a climate sensitivity of 3°C
for a DOUBLING of atmospheric carbon dioxide. Of course, this assumes the
existence of positive feedbacks in the climate system. One such positive
feedback might be a decrease in snowfall, something talked about in the early
2000s:

"According to Dr David Viner, a senior research scientist at the climatic
research unit (CRU) of the University of East Anglia, within a few years
winter snowfall will become 'a very rare and exciting event'." [2]

Recently, though, the claims are now that "snow outside is what global warming
looks like." [3]

Without positive feedbacks, the climate sensitivity is more like 1.2°C for a
DOUBLING of atmospheric carbon dioxide.

[1] <http://www.esrl.noaa.gov/gmd/ccgg/trends/#mlo_full> [2]
[http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-
now-j...](http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/snowfalls-are-now-just-a-
thing-of-the-past-724017.html) [3]
[http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-
snow-...](http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/20/uk-snow-global-
warming)

