Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

Politics
posted by takyon on Monday November 13 2017, @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

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough 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.
  • (Score: 4, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday November 13 2017, @05:37AM (6 children)

    by Mykl (1112) on Monday November 13 2017, @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?

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +2  
       Insightful=2, Total=2
    Extra 'Insightful' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   4  
  • (Score: -1, Flamebait) by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @07:13AM (3 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @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 2017, @08:54AM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @08:54AM (#596107)

      False dichotomy.

      Trash everything now OR everyone dies.

    • (Score: 4, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday November 13 2017, @11:33AM

      by GreatAuntAnesthesia (3275) on Monday November 13 2017, @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 2017, @05:05PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @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 2017, @10:38AM (1 child)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday November 13 2017, @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 2017, @10:54PM

      by Mykl (1112) on Tuesday November 14 2017, @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.