[MD] S/O and Morality

[Steve Peterson]

>
Hi Platt, (Arlo quoted)


>> [Platt]
>> Looks like straw man set up to me.
>>

Steve:
James Hansen says he has been censored. You say "To state or imply  
that advocates of global warming have been censored is absurd." Okay,  
I will write him a letter and tell him that though he thinks he was  
censored, he actually wasn't because that would be absurd. I'm sure  
he'll be relieved.

I now know that this didn't actually happen since you say it would be  
absurd, but I hope we can agree hypothetically that if a scientist  
had been asked by Congress to write a report for Congress on global  
warming, and the message of the report he wrote was changed by non- 
scientist White House officials, it would be immoral. Thank goodness  
that could never happen in our country.



>> [Arlo]
>> This was not what Steve suggested. What Steve pointed to was a very
>> specific incident where the administration censored the work of
>> scientists in order to change the outcome of the report. It did this
>> not out "fairness in presenting both sides of an issue", but because
>> it wanted the report to conform to its ideological stance, which  
>> it did not.
>>
>> That is quite immoral, according to the MOQ.
>

Platt:
> Have you heard the administration's side of the story? I haven't.  
> But intellectual
> morality calls for all sides to be heard.

Steve:
60 minutes interviewed Hansen and sought a response from the  
administration but 60 minutes was told that they would never get an  
interview with them. Does that mean that we can never draw any  
conclusions on the matter? (I found the interview on youtube with a  
google search.)

Regards,
Steve