1. Comment #25016 by mithraman on March 9, 2007 at 5:43 pm

Next step: replace those "Do Not Feed The Bears" signs in our parks with ones that say "Do Not Discuss The Bears".

Other Comments by mithraman

2. Comment #25025 by kkant on March 9, 2007 at 6:33 pm

My first thought was that this was dogma at its finest. How silly, to have a "position of the administration" in a scientific meeting. But on second thought, this may not really be a scientific meeting; rather it may be a diplomatic meeting, in which case of course you'd need to maintain all these protocols etc.

If this is really a regular science conference, then what the Bush administration says means squat. It only applies if this is a diplomatic meeting.

Isn't it great, how fluidly nations communicate with each other. :D

Other Comments by kkant

3. Comment #25027 by neander on March 9, 2007 at 6:38 pm

Yet another example of Bush administration muzzling scientists. Dark ages, here we come!

Other Comments by neander

4. Comment #25031 by Monsterbeach on March 9, 2007 at 7:01 pm

"global warming" the new root password to power?.

Other Comments by Monsterbeach

5. Comment #25035 by themoonsays on March 9, 2007 at 7:21 pm

So who wants to talk about polar bears anyway?

Does this mean we won't be subjected to that awful Coca Cola commercial with the polar bears and penguins together. Question: where are polar bears and penguins ever seen together, or even near each other, except at the Central Park Zoo?

Other Comments by themoonsays

6. Comment #25050 by denoir on March 9, 2007 at 11:20 pm

Official attempts at censorship are one thing but what is alarming to me is the auto-censorship - the scientific community to censor itself in order to avoid upsetting some people.

I know this is anecdotal evidence, but somehow I doubt it is a unique occurrence:

This last Christmas my mother (professor of philosophy by profession) got a request by the editor of a leading US philosophy journal in connection to the peer-review process for an article she had submitted. Basically he said that the peer-review went fine but asked if she could remove or alter the section where she was talking about evolution through natural selection as an example of a type of computing process. He said that "evolution is a controversial subject here and it would be great if you could remove the references to it in the article".

Of course, she refused and they did not push the issue. It was a suggestion and not a demand but IMO that's bad enough.

I learned this because it happened as I was staying with my parents over the holidays and I was shocked but according to my mother it's not that uncommon for American journals to be very uncomfortable with discussing evolution. Not because they don't believe in it but because they desperately don't want to offend anybody.

Other Comments by denoir

7. Comment #25054 by atheist_peace on March 9, 2007 at 11:47 pm

Let the Canadians and Scandinavians handle this one. Washington will be happy with all the polar bears dying just so Bush's klan can make another billion.

Other Comments by atheist_peace

8. Comment #25057 by karlJ on March 10, 2007 at 12:21 am

Damn it! Are the polar bears going?
Aaw... I've always wanted me som polar bear pants. Gotta go there real quick and shoot me some before they are gone.

Other Comments by karlJ

9. Comment #25065 by Vadjong on March 10, 2007 at 1:42 am

MMMmm, are polar bears the new panda's ?

Dear God, please design some nifty polar bear flippers. Evolution takes too long.

While watching The Natural World with the exhausted, famished polar bear attacking a colony of seals that were way too big for him (it?), my dad (oblivious to the foreignese commentary) laughed at the stupidity of the bear. My eyes already watering, I choked and put him rather brusquely in his place. Sorry dad. (I've given him the translated book and subtitled DVD of An Inconvenient Truth to make amends.)

Other Comments by Vadjong

10. Comment #25169 by L.Minnik on March 10, 2007 at 4:12 pm

Just that...
People have a right to discuss environmental issues, politics and religion freely as long as they do not endanger a country's security or the like.
If not, something harmful to people may be going on.

Other Comments by L.Minnik

11. Comment #25206 by fonex_86 on March 10, 2007 at 11:11 pm

Bah, this reminds me of Richard Feynman's experience in Brazil, which he discusses in one of his books (I think it was in Surely You're Joking but I'm not sure).

Why be afraid of offending people? If, in the light of scientific evidence, their opinion is downright stupid, I tell them so. No wonder international policy/diplomacy never gets anywhere: everybody's afraid of offending everybody else!

Other Comments by fonex_86

12. Comment #25215 by Helios G2V on March 11, 2007 at 3:16 am

A lot of science is funded by governments using the "Golden Rule". He or she who has the gold makes the rules.

The Bush administration would be likely to be eyeing off the Arctic as a new oil bearing area. Don't need any pesky Polar Bears getting in the way.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

13. Comment #25218 by Mikado on March 11, 2007 at 3:41 am

Hey we must not lose the polar bears, they are proof of Creation. As I have been led to understand they were created after the Medieval Warm Period to take advantage of the climate during The Little Ice Age.

Other Comments by Mikado

14. Comment #28354 by lab_rat on March 28, 2007 at 11:35 pm

While the video clips of polar bears stranded on ice floes can be heart wrenching, that requires some preconceived notions. Is he there because his home has shrunk, or did he choose to swim there.

Also not mentioned, the polar bear population has exploded over the last decade or two.

In a region with clearly scarce resources, a correction is to be expected.

Other Comments by lab_rat