07 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotjust government doing what they always do. talk down the negative, hyperbolize the positive. its the equivalent of not shouting fire in a crowded theatre, fire or no fire.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5gIXWYBTpLtSayJtg41LKXpxSxVPAD9IMDP100?docId=D9IMDP100
07 Oct 10
I fail to see where the White House denies the science. As far as I can tell the article is all about politics and as kmax87 says, whether or not to shout 'fire'.
The administration did not say "the science is wrong" but rather tried to stop scientists from giving 'worst case scenarios' to the public. Keep in mind that 'worst case scenarios' even from scientists are usually grossly exaggerated and it does not necessarily serve in the countries best interest to scare the people. It does in some cases serve in the politicians best interest hence all the 'terrorism' talk of the last 10 years.
07 Oct 10
Originally posted by twhiteheadso it's OK for the Obama White House, but not OK for the Bush White House?
I fail to see where the White House denies the science. As far as I can tell the article is all about politics and as kmax87 says, whether or not to shout 'fire'.
The administration did not say "the science is wrong" but rather tried to stop scientists from giving 'worst case scenarios' to the public. Keep in mind that 'worst case scenarios' even from sc ...[text shortened]... in the politicians best interest hence all the 'terrorism' talk of the last 10 years.
07 Oct 10
2 edits
Originally posted by zeeblebotThe Bush-ites routinely suppressed science that wasn't so much "worst-case scenario" stuff as "the consensus of 95% of the scientific community" stuff. A zebra of a rather different stripe.
so it's OK for the Obama White House, but not OK for the Bush White House?
Put another way, the Obama-istas want to clip off the tail-ends of the bell curve, whereas the Bush-ites often wanted to toss out the bell -- then maybe shop for a different one that rang the tune they liked.