[MD] S/O and Morality

[Steven Peterson]

Hi Platt,


>> 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.
>
>For a guy whose complaints were written up in the NY Times, the Washington 
>Post and broadcast on 60 minutes as well as many other liberal media 
>outlets, the charge of censorship appears ludicrous.

Steve:
His complaint isn't that the press is censoring him. His reports to Congress were changed by the White House.



>> 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.
>
>Hypothetically I hope we can agree it's immoral for a scientist to skew 
>data to fit a political agenda. 
>

Steve:

Of course.

Platt:
>Did 60 minutes mention that Hansen got $250,000 from the Heinz foundation, 
>run by the wife of the liberal candidate for president, John Kerry?

Steve:
I don't think so. Is it relevant?

>Of course, you are free to draw whatever conclusions you wish. My own  
>conclusion is that no administration, conservative or liberal,  is 
>obligated to support dubious science. 

Steve:
I can't see why anyone would want to support dubious science either. Do you have evidence that Hansen's work is dubious?

Regards,
Steve