(12-10-2016 07:00 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 04:47 PM)RiceLad15 Wrote:  

(12-10-2016 02:58 PM)OptimisticOwl Wrote:  If the current warming is 70% natural and 30% man-caused, and if we can reverse 50% of the man-caused portion with policies, then we will have reversed 15% and 85% will continue.

I don't advocate a return to smokestack industries and smog. What I do advocate is an emphasis on learning to adjust to the changes, even as we act to slow their advance. Changes in what crops are planted where, development of heat resistant strains, etc. The climate has changed many times in the past, but in the past, we could adjust by moving the village a little farther from the lake or by moving our hunting grounds to the north. Not so in this day and age.

But if people like me were excluded from the government, wasn't that suppression of dissent? (Back to the topic)

So to your original comment to me. I don't think suppression of dissent is when the other side doesn't get equal coverage or focus. Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it. Has there been evidence that researchers had to withdraw their findings because they conflicted with a certain narrative? Because if not, all you have are different priorities.

Active exclusion though, would count. Is there evidence that people applying for positions were being excluded because of their stance on climate change? Because right now, it looks like that may be happening, just not in the way one would expect.

What is the evidence that even one skeptic was hired despite his stance on climate change? Where are the dissenters?

"Suppression is when you actively try to stifle something even if people are pushing for it." So, where do you stand on evolution vs. creationism? Some people pushing for both sides.

people expressing certain viewpoints are not often hired by those expressing opposing viewpoints. Obama has his viewpoint, and his administration follows that. If Trump does the same, then it is THE SAME.

If a school board won't hire creationists, and then there is an election and the new school board won't hire evolutionists, which one is suppressing dissent?

Provide me evidence that the current admin either fired or intentionally kept people with specific viewpoints out of the rank and file and you'll have me interested. Until then, it looks like you're trying to place guilt on a group without evidence. I don't need to prove anything since I'm providing evidence of the Trump administration trying to actively find out who attended conferences on the climate. Give me yours.

This isn't about the head of an organization, a position where it makes sense that someone whose views align with the appointer because they have an agenda. This is about rank and file members of an organization who are appearing to be singled out for their understanding of climate science.