Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 16 submissions in the queue.
Politics
posted by takyon on Monday November 13, @02:24AM   Printer-friendly
from the flame-on dept.

According to The Missoulian (archive):

Several of Missoula's top federal fire scientists have been denied permission to attend the International Fire Congress later this month, leading conference organizers to suspect censorship of climate-related research.

"Anyone who has anything related to climate-change research — right away was rejected," said Timothy Ingalsbee of the Association for Fire Ecology, a nonprofit group putting on the gathering. Ingalsbee noted that was his personal opinion, and that the AFE [Association for Fire Ecology] is concerned that a federal travel restriction policy may be more to blame.

The Missoulian also said (archive):

The scientists no longer attending include Matt Jolly, who was to present new work on "Climate-induced variations in global severe weather fire conditions," Karin Riley on "Fuel treatment effects at the landscape level: burn probabilities, flame lengths and fire suppression costs," Mike Battaglia on "Adaptive silviculture for climate change: Preparing dry mixed conifer forests for a more frequent fire regime," and Dave Calkin, who was working on ways to manage the human response to wildfire.

takyon: Also at Scientific American (thanks to another Anonymous Coward).


Original Submission

Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough

Reply to Article

Mark All as Read

Mark All as Unread

The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(1)
  • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:41AM (13 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:41AM (#596041)

    Twitter let's Trump account go down for 11 minutes everyone loses their mind and cries censorship. Actual censorship of important science? That's just fine...

    • (Score: 3, Insightful) by driverless on Monday November 13, @03:26AM (10 children)

      by driverless (4770) on Monday November 13, @03:26AM (#596050)

      Here's an idea, why not hold the International Fire Congress someone international rather than in a country where science is subject to politically-motivated censorship? Or is the International Fire Congress like the World Series where "World" = "USA only"?

      • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:22AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:22AM (#596059)

        Keep whining, scientists, as if the work you do at taxpayer expense should not be directed by policymakers. That attitude will surely help keep the Rs in charge.

        • (Score: 3, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:23AM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:23AM (#596095)

          Actually no, the science done by various departments should not be very beholden to the whims of some politician. The EPA, FDA, FCC, and etc. should be held to their actual founding charters. They should not be responsible to whatever jerkoff politician gets a hardon for some lobbying group. We are seeing right now what happens when the top of the pyramid feels justified in dictating down to the bottom.

          You may applaud Trump's actions thinking it is the draining of the swamp, and so I guess the ignorant must learn the truth by bringing the shit down upon us all.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:56PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @01:56PM (#596172)

            Leader A is in charge and encourages research to whip up fear that benefits him politically. Then leader B gets elected, and his political allies don't want to hear about the topic. So B shuts down the research. Big whoop.

          • (Score: 3, Informative) by Grishnakh on Monday November 13, @03:46PM

            by Grishnakh (2831) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:46PM (#596225)

            You may applaud Trump's actions thinking it is the draining of the swamp, and so I guess the ignorant must learn the truth by bringing the shit down upon us all.

            I honestly don't see the problem here, or why they need to have this conference at all. What use is it? To prevent forest fires, or lessen their impact? Why is that important or useful?

            Just let the forests burn, along with whatever homes happen to be nearby. Remember, the people who live in rural areas who will be affected more by this are generally conservative and voted for the guy who doesn't believe in climate change. They're getting exactly what they voted for.

            Remember, as I've said here over and over, "every nation gets the government it deserves".

        • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:43AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:43AM (#596103)

          Actually it's the people who pay for this knowledge in order to get advantageous policy decisions.

          What is the knowledge and who gets the advantages, that's the question?

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:00PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:00PM (#596179)

            I thought the taxpayers paid for this knowledge. Silly me.

      • (Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:56AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:56AM (#596071)

        Pretty much. The first was held in London in 1903. The second was in Orlando in 2004. This will be the seventh and will also be in Orlando. It's also been held in other places in the USA: Portland, Oregon; San Diego; San Antonio and in Savannah, Georgia.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:11AM (2 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:11AM (#596074)

        If a conference doesn't stay in one spot, you should suspect that most participants treat it as an excuse to see the world with their employers paying.

        Heck, that is true of conferences in general. The actual research is available on the internet, either fully free or as pre-publication "draft" copies that are essentially complete.

        I'm sure we can research fire forever, continuing to find ever more detailed nuances, but I have a feeling we've got enough to work with now in 2017. We have this pretty much figured out.

        Jetting around the world is a fine way to show that the scientists are not actually concerned about carbon emissions.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:46AM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:46AM (#596104)

          Can we apply this standard to everyone or just scientists? No work travel unless you are LITERALLY saving the planet RIGHT NOW.

        • (Score: 2) by urza9814 on Tuesday November 14, @04:30PM

          by urza9814 (3954) Subscriber Badge on Tuesday November 14, @04:30PM (#596849) Journal

          If a conference doesn't stay in one spot, you should suspect that most participants treat it as an excuse to see the world with their employers paying.

          Or it means the organizers want to make sure people who might not have a huge travel budget can attend at least occasionally. It's not like these are in friggin' Tijuana. If they're held at a popular resort/vacation spot -- as many "conferences" are -- then you might be right...but ones like this that are just moving between major cities in different parts of the country are probably just trying to ensure they aren't getting the same group of people every single time. Not everyone has an unlimited budget for flights for their entire staff. Some people are only going to be going if they can pile into a car and drive there in an afternoon.

          Heck, that is true of conferences in general. The actual research is available on the internet, either fully free or as pre-publication "draft" copies that are essentially complete.

          Not everyone is as comfortable with the internet and absorbing information through text as we are. And there's value to collaboration that you don't get just by publishing a paper online. Conferences certainly aren't perfect, and might not be the ideal way to do that either...but I think they do still have some value.

    • (Score: 2) by unauthorized on Monday November 13, @06:18AM (1 child)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday November 13, @06:18AM (#596085)

      Twitter let's Trump account go down for 11 minutes everyone loses their mind and cries censorship

      No, a Twitter employee maliciously vandalizes Trump's profile for political purposes. This is a form of extremism, even it is the very definition of petty.

      Actual censorship of important science? That's just fine...

      Nobody, except for perhaps global warming denying morons think this is fine. And yes, people are more concerned about matters more immediately related to their lives, this isn't exactly rocket science.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:02AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:02AM (#596111)

        Actually much of it depends on rocket science since we use satellites for a lot of our global studies. Climate science is still an evolving field, so one might say it is even more complicated than rocket science.

        As for twitter, it was just a reference to how wildly out of proportion people reacted to what amounted to vandalism. It didn't even really count as censorship as you point out, but we've had scientists complaining since pretty much day one of Trump's presidency. The lack of outrage can only be explained by climate denying morons and other such idiots who think those elitist / corrupt scientists are just getting the house cleaning they deserve. The anti-intellectual movement in the US should concern everyone.

  • (Score: 5, Interesting) by Techwolf on Monday November 13, @02:50AM (15 children)

    by Techwolf (87) on Monday November 13, @02:50AM (#596043)

    While climate change may be a contributing factor, the real cause for those damaging fires is Smokey The Bear. By suppressing what mother nature has done regularity for millions of years, we suppress that natural fire and allow buildup of flammable materials over the past 50 or so years. And now we are paying the price for messing with mother nature.

    My grammar logic is very bad. Werewolves are not the smartest english language creatures in the world.

    • (Score: 5, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Monday November 13, @02:55AM (4 children)

      by PartTimeZombie (4827) on Monday November 13, @02:55AM (#596044)

      You're right, they have the same problem in Australia where the eucalyptus forest actually needs fire to seed properly.

      People have moved into the bush however, in their lifestyle blocks and so the fire service is obliged to put the fires out.

      It's a real problem.

      • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 13, @03:39AM (2 children)

        by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 13, @03:39AM (#596052)

        In Florida there are increasing areas of prescribed burns, keeping the (semi)native pine trees happy, the way they were 300 years ago. The sand pine needs fire to release its seed, and almost all pines are more fire resistant than their competition, so it gives them a competitive advantage.

        Still, not highly compatible with houses, so you don't see a lot of pine forest around the homes, mostly oak with tinderbox undergrowth... keeps the firefighters on their toes.

        • (Score: 2) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @04:21AM (1 child)

          by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:21AM (#596058) Homepage Journal

          Driving down to Florida, I noticed long swaths of forested areas that could have used some fire breaks.

          Waiting for God's smiting hand!?!

          --
          --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
          • (Score: 3, Interesting) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 13, @04:42AM

            by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 13, @04:42AM (#596070)

            We have plenty of firebreaks, we call them highways.

            Before European settlement, a single lightning strike could start a statewide blaze, and apparently they were frequent. Pines are very fire adapted, and with regular burns, they will survive a fire. However, if you let the fuel load build up for 30 years before a burn happens, then not even pines can survive a burn that hot.

            If you want to see firebreaks, drive through the Ocala National tree farm (yes, officially a forest, but actually feedstock for the lumber industry grown and maintained using federal tax dollars.) They take them pretty seriously there. Forest management varies pretty significantly by owner, most private owners seem to try to maximize yield from their land - either from harvest or loss-recovery insurance payout.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:49AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:49AM (#596105)

        Solution: stop monitoring it, end all research into it, MAGA.

    • (Score: 2) by BK on Monday November 13, @03:05AM (3 children)

      by BK (4868) on Monday November 13, @03:05AM (#596046)

      /I've always wanted to do this.

      It's Smokey Bear, not Smokey THE Bear.
      And, for the record:
      Santa Claus, not Santa THE Clause.
      etc.

      --
      4 out of 5 dentists choose Brand X. The other is just a denier.
      • (Score: 5, Funny) by Gaaark on Monday November 13, @04:26AM

        by Gaaark (41) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @04:26AM (#596062) Homepage Journal

        Is it BK pedant, or BK THE pedant?
        :)
        OMG! I pedanted a pedant. Does that make me a pedo?

        --
        --- That's not flying: that's... falling... with more luck than I have. ---
      • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:29AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:29AM (#596064)

        In 1952, Steve Nelson and Jack Rollins wrote the popular anthem that would launch a continuous debate about Smokey’s name. To maintain the rhythm of the song, they added “the” between “Smokey” and “Bear.” Due to the song’s popularity, Smokey Bear has been called “Smokey the Bear” by many adoring fans, but, in actuality, his name never changed. He’s still Smokey Bear.

        ( https://smokeybear.com/en/smokeys-history/story-of-smokey [smokeybear.com] )

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:04PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @02:04PM (#596182)

        There is no Sanity Clause.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by frojack on Monday November 13, @03:15AM (4 children)

      by frojack (1554) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @03:15AM (#596049) Journal

      Smokey was put out to pasture almost 20 years ago.

      The goal and theme of the Smokey Bear campaign was adjusted in the 2000s, from "Only you can prevent forest fires" to "Only you can prevent wildfires".

      I don't think we can blame things like the Napa Valley fire on excess forest floor fuel in an area that is mostly farm land. Especially when 17 fires start the same night the Santa Anna winds were widely predicted and everybody knew what that meant, all in a south to north line through three counties. There was somebody besides smokey to blame.
      http://www.mercurynews.com/2017/10/10/pge-power-lines-linked-to-wine-country-fires/ [mercurynews.com]

      --
      No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
    • (Score: 3, Funny) by Mykl on Monday November 13, @05:40AM

      by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 13, @05:40AM (#596079)

      On the positive side, the increasing water levels brought on by climate change will reduce the land mass susceptible to fire. Win!

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:08AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @03:08AM (#596048)

    The best corn, period. Probably works for starting brush fire, too. Them "scientists" might know a thing or two.

  • (Score: 2) by JoeMerchant on Monday November 13, @03:42AM

    by JoeMerchant (3937) on Monday November 13, @03:42AM (#596053)

    Controlling the dialog at a conference is one thing... at least they're not taking it as far as firing anyone who publishes research with politically unpopular findings.

    Also, I'd bet the Streisand effect is stronger than any reduction in climate-science talk at the conference.

  • (Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:26AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:26AM (#596061)

    An article for E&E News, reprinted in Scientific American [scientificamerican.com] covers the same story.

  • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:32AM (24 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:32AM (#596065)

    Scientists seem to think, correctly or not, that tying everything to climate change will get them funding, no matter how absurd the connection. That is an abuse of the trust placed in scientists.

    Here we have a conference supposedly on fire, but 2 of the 4 people have decided to make their talks about climate change. That of course draws suspicion on the other 2 and on the whole conference.

    Lots of us voters really don't want your politics. Cut that out, or we'll cut funding. We have no desire to fund a campaign to disadvantage American industry while giving India and China a free pass.

    • (Score: 5, Touché) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13, @04:42AM (12 children)

      by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @04:42AM (#596069)

      And while we're at it, fuck all this clean water legislation and the FDA and stuff. Because making sure we're not mainlining dimethylmercury gets in the way of PROFITS. God, you people are stupid.

      • (Score: 0, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:59AM (11 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:59AM (#596072)

        Seriously! Our competition is not restricted. Our competition is eating our lunch. We can't survive as a nation of web developers, beggars, and government bureaucrats.

        Our options: cut our regulatory burden, give up and die, genocide the competition via nukes... and that's about it. There is a short-term option of protectionism with huge tariffs, maybe 500%, but that would likely end up with us being a relatively weak country that ultimately, decades from now, ends up getting conquered. So the huge tariffs probably are a slow-acting form of the second option, to give up and die.

        Well? Be a genius now and tell us how to survive in this competitive world.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday November 13, @05:37AM (6 children)

          by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 13, @05:37AM (#596077)

          Easy. Take the long view (rather than the short view you are taking). In 50 years all of those countries with no health regulations will be full of cancer-induced cripples wading through piles of filth to reach their lead-tainted water. Lets see them rule the world with that!

          Or are you seriously suggesting that we should let industry kill us through poisoning our air, earth and water in order to make a profit?

          • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:13AM (3 children)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:13AM (#596089)

            We can't keep things pristine and actually get stuff done.

            In 50 years, we will be gone if we keep going with the regulations. You can see some effects now, with tiny families and badly nourished children. We either don't breed at all or we actually starve... possibly starving with stomachs full of useless filler. (In the Irish potato famine, increased potato prices strangely caused people to eat more potatoes, dropping more expensive meat from their diets so that they could fill their bellies.)

            Those people in polluted countries will then just move to our depopulated country. (which they will pollute) Why do you want us extinct?

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:54AM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:54AM (#596107)

              False dichotomy.

              Trash everything now OR everyone dies.

            • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 13, @11:33AM

              by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday November 13, @11:33AM (#596132) Journal

              Why do you want us extinct?

              Says the person arguing for poisoning everybody on the planet and the ecosystems upon which we all depend for survival.

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:05PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:05PM (#596302)

              Wow, that was a twisted line of reasoning!

              Hate to break it to you, but the best way to help those tiny families with badly nourished children is to raise taxes and reform welfare.

              Those people in polluted countries will then just move to our depopulated country. (which they will pollute) Why do you want us extinct?

              I love your circular logic, however!

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:38AM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @10:38AM (#596121)

            In 50 years all of those countries with no health regulations will be full of cancer-induced cripples wading through piles of filth to reach their lead-tainted water. Lets see them rule the world with that!

            Nothing easier, just use Wikipedia to get to know some history.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Stink [wikipedia.org]
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Empire [wikipedia.org]
            Reality on planet Earth works quite differently from a hippie fantasy. It may be "bad", "not fair" and whatever, but it's what *is*.
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Guns,_Germs,_and_Steel [wikipedia.org]

            • (Score: 2) by Mykl on Tuesday November 14, @10:54PM

              by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday November 14, @10:54PM (#597039)

              You should read the links that you post. The "Great Stink" was an example of a country realizing they have a pollution problem and taking action to address it for the good of the country (including business!). If you are arguing against addressing pollution, then this link is the opposite of that.

              By the way, there's a great documentary series on Netflix called the Seven Wonders of the Industrial World [netflix.com]. Episode 5 focuses on the Great Stink and the building of the sewer system. Amazing stuff.

        • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:02AM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:02AM (#596083)

          We can't survive as a nation of web developers, beggars, and government bureaucrats.

          You yourself run into this deadend by putting profit over life. Karma's calling the debt now.

          Our options: cut our regulatory burden, give up and die, genocide the competition via nukes... and that's about it.

          That's nature telling you something. The quickest and cheapest way to listen to it is using your beloved gun on yourself - do it right and it's quick and painless.

          • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:32AM

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:32AM (#596098)

            The quickest and cheapest way to listen to it is using your beloved gun on yourself

            Do it in a forest and give back to the nature the resources you squandered.

        • (Score: 2, Troll) by Azuma Hazuki on Monday November 13, @09:53PM (1 child)

          by Azuma Hazuki (5086) on Monday November 13, @09:53PM (#596494)

          Here's one way: get thorium fission in modular reactors, thermal-mass solar, and a shitload of wind power going. Change farming to work more with the available soils and resources. Cut ties with foreign powers for basic things like oil.

          Oh, and round up all the fucking corrupt greedheads and burn them alive, broadcasting their screaming, flailing, agonizing deaths on international TV. There's a start. Shithead.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16, @05:07PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 16, @05:07PM (#597769)

            You forgot several steps.

              - stripmine for thorium

              - stripmine for solar panel shit

              - stripmine for battery storage shit

              - stripmine for the fun of tearing the earth open to create barren, desert regions

              - watch your own grandchildren dying agonizing deaths from all the stripmine pollution

            Ahhhh, fuck the little mutants. Let them die.

    • (Score: 3, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:11AM (6 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:11AM (#596073)

      I looked at the titles of the work that are mentioned in the summary. In my opinion, it isn't absurd to suppose that global warming could bring more episodes of hot weather. Nor is it absurd to suppose that fires could be more frequent if the weather were hotter. I say "global warming" rather than "climate change" because most of the Earth is getting warmer.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:04AM (5 children)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @07:04AM (#596088)

        If you are trying to deal with fire, you don't waste time on stuff that is way out of scope. Going on about possible climate change effects is unproductive. You may as well propose to pave the world like a giant parking lot to prevent fire -- which is sort of correct but completely out of scope of any reasonable discussion of fire.

        Oh, and global warming will reduce fire because flooded land is wet.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 13, @09:26AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @09:26AM (#596115)

          Oh, and global warming will reduce fire because flooded land is wet.

          FYI, the new beaches in Huston are some thousand miles away from forest fires in California.
          Dam'd forests, they managed to grow on hills, can't flood them that easy.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:09PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @04:09PM (#596243)

          Or if you fix windows for a living you could just figure out how to fix windows better... or as an alternative stop the kid throwing rocks at the windows in order to have less windows to fix.

        • (Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:08PM (2 children)

          by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:08PM (#596308)

          Going on about possible climate change effects is unproductive.

          Uh... my take on those presentations is that they were describing how to fight fire in a changed climate... as in the climate's already changed, and here's what we need to know about fire prevention looking at 2018.

          Just wow. You're clearly triggered by "climate change," you haven't seen anything beyond "climate change," and you've leaped to the conclusion that these are talks about climate change and not forest fire management.

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:24PM (1 child)

            by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @06:24PM (#596354)

            It is only reasonable to believe that these talks are about climate change.

            Forest fire management doesn't need to be concerned with climate change. We already know the deal and handle everything:

            At the extremes, which won't be going away, there is no fire. The glaciers won't burn. The bare rock in southern Libya won't burn. Everything between those extremes is something that exists on Earth today, and is thus old news. We are not getting a new type of flammable landscape.

            So there is no reason to put "climate change" in the titles of the talks, unless that is exactly what they are about.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:38AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @05:38AM (#596078)

      The other day I even heard somebody suggesting that changing climate was related to climate change! Fake news! What arrogance!

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by unauthorized on Monday November 13, @06:34AM (2 children)

      by unauthorized (3776) on Monday November 13, @06:34AM (#596086)

      We have no desire to fund a campaign to disadvantage American industry while giving India and China a free pass.

      Yes, you (collectively) do because you buy cheap Chinese crap and thus indirectly subsidize the cost-cutting manufacturing in China which is what is killing the US industry.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:59AM (1 child)

        by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @08:59AM (#596109)

        Don't worry, we'll soon be buying Chinese solar panels and importing Chinese technology while we sell Real American coal to any country more backward than we are.

        • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Monday November 13, @09:15AM

          by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @09:15AM (#596114)

          while we sell Real American coal to any country more backward than we are.

          I know such a place, it's Newcastle [wikipedia.org]

  • (Score: 3, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:53AM

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13, @09:53AM (#596117)

    Missoula: Hell's Gate. Everyone who knows the Salish origin of the name knows what it means. But usually it referred to that path to the West, the Buffalo Trail, to the lands of the Blackfeet. But now, Missoula has become Minas Tirith, the last city of Men, and they fight both the goblin forces of the East, Trumps orcs and political appointees, and the new forces of Secretary Zinke, who attacks from his stronghold formerly known as "Isengard", now called "Whitefish". And a new kind of Orc is being breed in Whitefish, only half-human, the other half either Californian or Neo-Nazi, imported from Virginia or Northern Idaho. And they are massing their forces. The silencing of scientists is only their first move! I do believe the Riders of Ronan will have to mobilize to fight the threat, taking refuge in their stronghold of BigFork. Dark days indeed are these, for the Men of the West.

  • (Score: 0, Flamebait) by bradley13 on Monday November 13, @12:17PM

    by bradley13 (3053) Subscriber Badge on Monday November 13, @12:17PM (#596140) Homepage Journal

    From TFA, first, we have the person complaining

    "Those folks are doing critical analysis on fire suppression effectiveness, which is a new area of research.”

    But his complaint was that people giving papers on AGW were cut - now, suddenly, they were actually on-topic? Anyway, the person handling the selections said:

    "the Forest Service allowed his lab to send six people to the Orlando conference. He had 20 applicants. ... We were offered six slots to fill. There was no criteria or requirement for the kinds of people or things they talked about."

    So it's limited attendance, the people cut were not rejected by the conference, but by a higher level in their own organization. At least, that's how I read it.

    --
    Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
  • (Score: 5, Insightful) by meustrus on Monday November 13, @09:24PM

    by meustrus (4961) <{meustrus} {at} {gmail.com}> on Monday November 13, @09:24PM (#596469)

    I've noticed that a lot of climate change deniers seem to believe in a conspiracy by scientists to push the climate change agenda. Researchers are being disingenuous about the climate for some nefarious purpose, usually boiling down to something akin to globalism.

    Well let me ask you this: When scientists are barred from discussing climate change, where is the conspiracy? When the EPA suddenly strikes all of its climate-change-related data from public availability, where is the conspiracy? When the oligarchs who have gained power over the executive branch of the federal government are engaged in actively suppressing certain information, where is the conspiracy? When those same oligarchs at the same time use their power to parcel out federal lands to wealthy energy corporations, ignoring not just environmentalists but the local fishing industries that stand to lose everything from a single industrial accident, where is the conspiracy?

    --
    If there isn't at least one reference or primary source, it's not +1 Informative.
(1)