USA: Bush censors scientists about polar bears and climate change

Polar bear cub

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.

Blair and climate change: here. And here.

9 thoughts on “USA: Bush censors scientists about polar bears and climate change

  1. Evangelical Environmentalism
    Posted by: “bigraccoon” redwoodsaurus
    Sun Mar 11, 2007 8:22 am (PST)
    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

    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.


  2. Posted by: “Corey” 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…

    Kennedy Swings, Roberts Strikes Out, Bush Loses, Earth Wins

    Posted by Bill Scher

    Bill Scher is the executive editor of 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.


  3. Pingback: British government spends on nuclear weapons, not on child poverty | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  4. Pingback: Dutch historians against Trump | Dear Kitty. Some blog

  5. Pingback: Bush and his ‘Defense’ Department win censorship prizes | Dear Kitty. Some blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.