Reuters reports:
“‘Don’t discuss polar bears“: memo to scientists
Thu Mar 8, 2007 5:23PM ET
By Deborah Zabarenko, Environment Correspondent
WASHINGTON – Polar bears, sea ice and global warming are taboo subjects, at least in public, for some U.S. scientists attending meetings abroad, environmental groups and a top federal wildlife official said on Thursday.
Environmental activists called this scientific censorship, which they said was in line with the Bush administration‘s history of muzzling dissent over global climate change.
See also here.
Response of the Royal Society of Britain to climate change negationist junk science: here.
Dear Kitty. Some blog 
Evangelical Environmentalism
Posted by: “bigraccoon” bigraccoon@earthlink.net redwoodsaurus
Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:22 am (PST)
EDITORIAL
Evangelical Environmentalism
March 10, 2007
For a couple of years, there have been encouraging signs
that conservative Christians are starting to take
environmental matters seriously – especially global warming.
But in a recent letter, several of the most prominent leaders
of the conservative Christian wing of the Republican Party,
including James Dobson, Gary Bauer and Paul Weyrich, told
the policy director of the National Association of Evangelicals,
the Rev. Richard Cizik, to shut up already about global
warming.
This was not a huge surprise, but it was a sad reminder of
how a radical agenda, like the brand of conservatism these
men preach, can overshadow everything else.
In the letter, they argue “that Cizik and others are using the
global warming controversy to shift the emphasis away from
the great moral issues of our time.” To Mr. Dobson and the
others, the great moral issues include homosexuality (and
gay marriage in particular), abortion and, more broadly,
sexual mores among young people.
Whether or not you agree with them about, say,
homosexuality and abortion – and we emphatically do not – it
is antiquated to limit the definition of morality to the way
humans behave among humans.
Those days have been over ever since it became apparent
that humans – busy thinking only about their own lives – had
the power to destroy huge numbers of species, whole
landscapes of habitat and, in fact, the balance of life on
earth. The greatest moral issue of our time is our
responsibility to the planet and to all its inhabitants.
LikeLike
he is so cute!
LikeLike
Hi sherri, yes, you’re right. That’s one reason why global warming must stop.
LikeLike
Posted by: “Corey” cpmondello@yahoo.com cpmondello
Tue Apr 3, 2007 9:27 am (PST)
Chief Justice Roberts tried to use conservative judicial activism to help Bush’s EPA ignore global warming…
http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/50061/
Kennedy Swings, Roberts Strikes Out, Bush Loses, Earth Wins
Posted by Bill Scher
Bill Scher is the executive editor of LiberalOasis.com and the online editor for Campaign for America’s Future. He is the author of Wait! Don’t Move To Canada!: A Stay-and-Fight Strategy to Win Back America, a weekly contributor to Air America Radio’s The Sam Seder Show and a fellow at the Commonweal Institute.
April 2, 2007.
President Bush’s Environmental Protection Agency claimed that, despite the Clean Air Act, it didn’t have the authority to combat the greenhouse gases that cause global warming. And even it did, it didn’t feel like it.
Bush’s Supreme Court justices John Roberts and Sam Alito agreed, along with veteran conservative activist judges Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas.
But the conservative movement has not yet fully taken over the Supreme Court.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Court ruled against Bush’s EPA, finding it does have the authority, and its excuses not to do anything about greenhouse gases don’t relate to the Clean Air Act (aka, the law).
(Case background available at ACSBlog, Environmental Defense, Gristmill and Think Progress.)
The Court majority included Ronald Reagan-appointee Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is proving to be a swing vote preventing the new Roberts Court from being dominated by conservative activism.
Roberts’ dissent (PDF file) should be a wake-up call to those who bought his earlier “I have no agenda … my job to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat” smokescreen. From his dissent:
“Apparently dissatisfied with the pace of progress on this issue in the elected branches, petitioners have come to the courts claiming broad-ranging injury, and attempting to tie that injury to the Government”s alleged failure to comply with a rather narrow statutory provision. I would reject these challenges as nonjusticiable.”
Much like Bush’s EPA, Bush’s Chief Justice shrugs and says: I don’t have the authority to follow and uphold the law.
Rendering the law, the democratically created law, worthless.
But this conservative judicial activism was defeated today, thanks to three Republican-appointed and two Democratic-appointed Justices.
What’s the practical benefit for the environment?
Both U.S. PIRG and Clear Air Watch note that Bush’s EPA has been holding up state-based efforts to implement strong tailpipe emissions standards, and the Court ruling undercuts that move.
Also, Justice Scalia’s 1993 effort — long supported by Roberts — to restrict the ability of citizens to go to court and uphold environmental laws, has suffered a major setback.
LikeLike
SAVE THE POLAR BEARS
LikeLike
Definitely, keel!
LikeLike
Pingback: British government spends on nuclear weapons, not on child poverty | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Dutch historians against Trump | Dear Kitty. Some blog
Pingback: Bush and his ‘Defense’ Department win censorship prizes | Dear Kitty. Some blog