[olePigeon]

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_2

"The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesd."

Typical.

[shmerek]

Throw shrub to the curb 2004

[Face Ache]

President Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, said he was disappointed in the report, and called it biased.

I love you Americans. You're ****ing insane.

[Spliffdaddy]

You didn't bother to check who made the accusations. The link was in the 2nd word of the article. http://www.ucsaction.org/action/

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a pulse that there exist few organizations more leftwing and peacenik than that one - except for, possibly, the AFL-CIO.

Sorry, but Dubya's opinion means so much more than the opinion of those misguided dolts.

[vmpaul]

Originally posted by Face Ache:
I love you Americans. You're ****ing insane.

It can be entertaining though, don't you think?

[Wiskedjak]

Originally posted by vmpaul:
It can be entertaining though, don't you think?

I'd find it more entertaining if the Americans didn't have the ability to totally **** up this planet without even realizing ... and then go blame everyone else when they can't breath the air, drink the water or travel abroad without getting shot at.

[BRussell]

This seems at first like a rather narrow issue, but I think it's not. Every administration has its own fundamental flaw.

Carter: micromanaging
Reagan: detached leadership
Clinton: too poll-driven

I think that the overarching flaw in this Bush administration is basically what this article points out: a willingness to distort facts. There's a strong ideological bent, and they just don't let the facts get in their way.

Too much Descartes, too little Locke.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
Sorry, but Dubya's opinion means so much more than the opinion of those misguided dolts.

interesting. You're saying he knows more than a collection of nobel laureate scientists?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

[fizzlemynizzle]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_2

"The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesd."

Typical.

Well when you had Christine Todd Whitman as the secretary of the interior, what would you expect? :-p

[shmerek]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You didn't bother to check who made the accusations. The link was in the 2nd word of the article. http://www.ucsaction.org/action/

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a pulse that there exist few organizations more leftwing and peacenik than that one - except for, possibly, the AFL-CIO.

Sorry, but Dubya's opinion means so much more than the opinion of those misguided dolts.

Up tho this point I always though spliff's opinions were real but the last line of this post makes me think he is just yankin' our chain. If it is really what you think all I can say is wow!

[deedar]

Originally posted by fizzlemynizzle:
Well when you had Christine Todd Whitman as the secretary of the interior, what would you expect? :-p

Gail Norton is Secretary of the Interior, Christine Todd Whitman was the EPA Administrator.

[Ayelbourne]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_2

"The Bush administration has distorted scientific fact leading to policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry, a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement on Wednesd."

Typical.

Well, we all know what paranoid delusionals those Nobel laureates are - but that aside, how is this news?

There are, perhaps, some as-yet-undiscovered stone age tribes in Papau New Guinea that haven't yet figured out that the Bush administration has a propensity for distorting facts, but just about everybody else on the planet has.

[voodoo]

Originally posted by Lerkfish:
interesting. You're saying he knows more than a collection of nobel laureate scientists?

IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH

Well looking at it from a Spock perspective Bush's opinion is worth much more in this instance because he's the president and the scientists are not.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
You didn't bother to check who made the accusations. The link was in the 2nd word of the article. http://www.ucsaction.org/action/

It's pretty obvious to anyone with a pulse that there exist few organizations more leftwing and peacenik than that one - except for, possibly, the AFL-CIO.

Sorry, but Dubya's opinion means so much more than the opinion of those misguided dolts.

The organization is made up of scientists from all ends of the political spectrum. And those misguided dolts have improved your life in a million different ways. I'll also trust their pedigree long before yours. Wait. What was your qualification for making the statement? Besides partisanism, I mean? Did you miss the previous 8 years where they slamdanced- in fact- beat the snot out of Clinton on more than a few issues? The SAME organization?

If you think the Administration isn't manipulating or ignoring data, Spliffy, man, you gotta do more looking. Seriously. This is not one of your better moments. The White House ADMITTED to altering, for example, the last EPA report. Why? They didn't say. But to suggest that it is anything other than to support an agenda is patently absurd.
THAT should be obvious to anyone with a pulse. Even if you support the Administration.

Seriously, now. Yes or no. Are you saying the White House does not alter, suppress or omit as the organization has described?

[Spliffdaddy]

I still don't care for the opinion of a bunch of liberal peacenik so-called 'scientists'. Apparently, not many other people care, either.

[Spheric Harlot]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I still don't care for the opinion of a bunch of liberal peacenik so-called 'scientists'. Apparently, not many other people care, either.

Your not caring, unfortunately, has absolutely no bearing on the truth of their assessment.

If people really cared, the government would look very different, and America would have FAR fewer problems with the rest of the world.

-s*

[vmarks]

Originally posted by maxelson:
The organization is made up of scientists from all ends of the political spectrum. And those misguided dolts have improved your life in a million different ways. I'll also trust their pedigree long before yours.

And Stephen Hawking has a fear of cyborgs. The man believes we'll have to colonize other planets in order to save the human race from them (themselves?)

Very intelligent people can hold very strange and irrational beliefs, and those beliefs can color their opinions, especially if they should speak outside their area of expertise. It doesn't lessen the benefit we have already received, but it should caution us to take their word on everything they say. Is it inconceivable that the data was distorted prior to the Bush administration and now we're watching the return to correct information? If you accept the notion that the Bush administration willfully distorts information, then you should also be able to accept that the pendulum can swing both directions.

"Back off, man! I'm a scientist!"

[Gee-Man]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And Stephen Hawking has a fear of cyborgs. The man believes we'll have to colonize other planets in order to save the human race from them (themselves?)

I don't see how this example has any relevance to countering their argument against the use of scientific data by the Bush administration. Stephen Hawking's opinions on cyborgs aren't the issue.

Very intelligent people can hold very strange and irrational beliefs, and those beliefs can color their opinions, especially if they should speak outside their area of expertise.

That's true in general, but again, this is besides the point in this case. These scientists aren't talking about anything "strange and irrational", nor are they talking outside of their area of expertise, in fact, for many of them this is EXACTLY their area of expertise, which is why they're raising the issue in the first place. I see no reason to automatically dismiss what they say unless you have a burning desire to support the Bush administration regardless of any criticism against it. Healthy skepticism is good, but the instant responses to this report, and the lack of specifics from the more conservative folks on here feel more like cheerleading.

If you want to make a point that these specific criticisms are groundless, then do so, and find a counter-argument and evidence to support it. Basically saying, "some other scientist once said a crazy thing, so you shouldn't trust these guys" is not evidence or a valid counter-argument. There are 37 pages of issues here, I'd like to see someone at least try pick something out of that before dismissing it.

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by Gee-Man:
I see no reason to automatically dismiss what they say unless you have a burning desire to support the Bush administration regardless of any criticism against it.

ding, ding, ding! we have a winner, folks!

[thunderous_funker]

A fish always rots from the head.

Anyone serious about getting to the root of this systemic problem needn't look any further than the Office of Management and Budget.

You'll notice that the group's statement mentions OMB specifically for it's role in creating an environment where facts are sacrificed at the alter of political and economic ideology.

And any investigation of OMB's role in this problem needn't look any further than the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs and it's head, John Graham.

John Graham plays a crucial role in how all government regulation is evaluated because his office does cost-benefit analyses which determine federal funding.

And who is he? As the former director of the Havard Center for Risk Analysis, he is a leading pioneer in the realm of science-for-hire. HCRA is a corporate funded shell that pumps out disinformation, propaganda and utterly bogus "research" under the guise of scientific objectivity.

For example, when AT&T paid HCRA for a study on whether or not driving while talking on a cell phone was dangerous, the study miraculously found that it wasn't. Counltess other examples exist where HCRA provided "science" that "proved" what the companies paying for the study wanted to hear.

Graham has made public statements and published opinion throughout his career that demonstrate his fundemental ideological opposition to the very idea of federal regulation--even in such critical areas as pollution and worker safety.

Recently, the EPA took a public hit when the details of a study were leaked that showed they were calculating cost-benefit of certain pollution regulations using a formula that mathmatically valued seniors' lives 20-30% lower than young people. In other words, when deciding if some pollution control is "worth it", killing old people is less egregious than killing young people.

The source of that study was John Graham's office.

Back in 2001, Public Citizen and other groups tried to block his appointment to this seemingly obscure position. I even started a thread trying to get people to contact their representatives to express opposition to his appointment (unfortunately the search page doesn't seem to be working so I can't find it).

Now, it seems, we can look back and see exactly how much that seemingly insignificant bit of political wrangling is actually costing us. What can we expect from government when we allow persons who continuously demonstrate that they value profits over people to run the show?

[vmarks]

Sometimes "It depends", "Sometimes", or "Within certain parameters" are actually valid answers to scientific questions. If it takes an undergrad degree in a science field to understand that, what does that say about the 95%+ of the rest of the population that never finished high school, never went to college, or became English majors (poor souls)?

Singling out Bush, like I've said above, provides a convenient scapegoat without looking at the real problem or how to solve it: "Oh, look at Bush! _He's so eeevil! _He's distorting science to fit his viewpoint!" _The unsaid conclusion to this, of course, is that if we get rid of Bush, or even Republican politicians, that this will somehow be fixed.

""Neither ideology nor policy concerns should constrain the research agenda in any way," said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS. Leshner said there is a "frightening trend" in this direction now, in which scientists whose findings appear to run counter to the dominant political or cultural agenda are losing funding or appointments."

The sad part is that Dr. Leshner calls this a "trend", as if this were something new, instead of the reality of the commingling of science, public funding, and public policy for the last.... hell. _Louis Pasteur was manipulating this same kind of system back in the 1800s in Europe.


--- http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/200...466/1460/18#18

[Lerkfish]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sometimes "It depends", "Sometimes", or "Within certain parameters" are actually valid answers to scientific questions. If it takes an undergrad degree in a science field to understand that, what does that say about the 95%+ of the rest of the population that never finished high school, never went to college, or became English majors (poor souls)?

Singling out Bush, like I've said above, provides a convenient scapegoat without looking at the real problem or how to solve it: "Oh, look at Bush! _He's so eeevil! _He's distorting science to fit his viewpoint!" _The unsaid conclusion to this, of course, is that if we get rid of Bush, or even Republican politicians, that this will somehow be fixed.

""Neither ideology nor policy concerns should constrain the research agenda in any way," said Dr. Alan Leshner, CEO of the AAAS. Leshner said there is a "frightening trend" in this direction now, in which scientists whose findings appear to run counter to the dominant political or cultural agenda are losing funding or appointments."

The sad part is that Dr. Leshner calls this a "trend", as if this were something new, instead of the reality of the commingling of science, public funding, and public policy for the last.... hell. _Louis Pasteur was manipulating this same kind of system back in the 1800s in Europe.


--- http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/200...466/1460/18#18

Simply because its in the apologist's handbook to defend him at every turn does not mean there aren't legitimate criticisms of him or his policies.

[Logic]

To those defending Bush:

What would be the best way to stop this from happening?

IMO that is to "punish" the ones in office who do this. Isn't that what democracy is about? Show your elected leaders that you don't like politicians distorting scientific data to drum up support for their agendas. That's the only way and at least the most effective way to stop this. Saying this has gone on for years and that Clinton did it to is just not acceptable. Not unless you want this to go on of course.....

[tie]

Originally posted by vmarks:
Sometimes "It depends", "Sometimes", or "Within certain parameters" are actually valid answers to scientific questions. If it takes an undergrad degree in a science field to understand that, what does that say about the 95%+ of the rest of the population that never finished high school, never went to college, or became English majors (poor souls)?

Singling out Bush, like I've said above, provides a convenient scapegoat without looking at the real problem or how to solve it: "Oh, look at Bush! _He's so eeevil! _He's distorting science to fit his viewpoint!" _The unsaid conclusion to this, of course, is that if we get rid of Bush, or even Republican politicians, that this will somehow be fixed.

A quote: "The scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."

Now what do you think the "real problem" here is? Do you see some underlying social trend that is causing Bush to distort scientific evidence? And therefore Bush isn't responsible for distorting science to an unprecedented degree?

How can you call the President a "convenient scapegoat"? It is his administration!?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by vmarks:
And Stephen Hawking has a fear of cyborgs. The man believes we'll have to colonize other planets in order to save the human race from them (themselves?)

Very intelligent people can hold very strange and irrational beliefs, and those beliefs can color their opinions, especially if they should speak outside their area of expertise. It doesn't lessen the benefit we have already received, but it should caution us to take their word on everything they say. Is it inconceivable that the data was distorted prior to the Bush administration and now we're watching the return to correct information? If you accept the notion that the Bush administration willfully distorts information, then you should also be able to accept that the pendulum can swing both directions.

"Back off, man! I'm a scientist!"

And is it inconceivable that they are just a bunch of scientists who are taking a look at a situation and calling foul?
I'm sorry, but it seems to me that the Administration has far more in the way of ulterior motive. At least the scientists are a bit more bent on backing up their theories and arguments with actual data. Read the report. It is quite specific. THEN tell me we are dealing with 800 wackos. If you are going to politicize this thing, well, then I'd have to say that is yours and, IMO, a bit silly. This organization is made up of hundreds of folk. Are you saying they are all freaked out by cyborgs?

Martin Luther was obsessed with everything that came out of his- or anyone else's anus. That certainly does not mean that he had missed any boat with the 95 theses.
vmarks, I am a little surprised that you would suggest this. OF COURSE scientists are human. Of course they have opinions. This is a large group. Their very nature is to conclude by the data and, after working very closely with some of the most academically snotty little test tube divas in the world, I'd really have to say that there are about as many corrupt or bad scientists as there are in any other profession (read: VERY few)- excluding politics- where it is the majority of them who lean to dishonesty. Are you suggesting the entire body is crazy? Are you suggesting the administration has nothing to gain? And the final question: Yes or No: do you believe- really- that this administration did not alter, omit or suppress scientific data?
Yes or No, please.

[maxelson]

Originally posted by vmarks:


The sad part is that Dr. Leshner calls this a "trend", as if this were something new, instead of the reality of the commingling of science, public funding, and public policy for the last.... hell. _Louis Pasteur was manipulating this same kind of system back in the 1800s in Europe.


--- http://www.kuro5hin.org/comments/200...466/1460/18#18

No. His contention is that, while all administrations are utilizing the data to a political end and will interpret the numbers to fit their needs, this administration eliminates, obfuscates and obliterates data. Suppresses it. Eliminates it. Censors it. His contention is that this administration does it far beyond any in the past- and will do it to its own departments. Its own data is supressed when it does not fit the political agenda. Take the EPA report last year. Listen to his interview from yesterday on NPR. Available on www.npr.org. Click yesterday's show calendar. He is very clear about why this administration is any different.

vmarks- have you actually read the report and listened to what they are saying?

[maxelson]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I still don't care for the opinion of a bunch of liberal peacenik so-called 'scientists'. Apparently, not many other people care, either.

Huh. Now this is one of those answers I am unsure of. Not sure you actually believe this one yourself. Nah. Too silly. You're funnin' agin.

[tie]

An interesting NY Times article: Bush vs. the Laureates: How Science Became a Partisan Issue

There are a number of interesting cases discussed in the article. Here are a few examples.

• Bush ignores any scientific evidence which doesn't support his chosen policy.
• Bush has a litmus test that advising scientists first and foremost must be Bush supporters.
• Bush's political appointees regularly manipulate headlines and opening paragraphs of news releases on scientific studies.

I've quoted three supporting excerpts below.

An Early Skirmish

Climate emerged as a prickly issue in the first months of Mr. Bush's term, when the White House began forging its energy policy and focusing on ways to increase domestic use of coal and production of oil.

In March 2001, a White House team used a single economic analysis by the Energy Department to build a case that Mr. Bush quickly used to back out of his campaign pledge to restrict power plant discharges of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming.

The analysis, from December 2000, was based on a number of assumptions, including one that no technological innovation would occur. The result showed that prompt cuts in carbon dioxide from power plants would weaken the economy.

Other analyses, including some by other branches of the Department of Energy, drew different conclusions but were ignored.

Advice from climate experts at the Environmental Protection Agency was sought but also ignored. A March 7 memorandum from agency experts to the White House team recommended that the carbon dioxide pledge be kept, saying the Energy Department study "was based on assumptions that do not apply" to Mr. Bush's plan and "inflates the costs of achieving carbon dioxide reductions." The memo was given to The New York Times by a former E.P.A. official who says science was not adequately considered.

Nonetheless, the White House team stuck to its course, drafting a memo on March 8 to John Bridgeland, the president's domestic policy adviser, that used the energy study to argue for abandoning the campaign promise.

None of the authors was a scientist. ... They concluded that Mr. Bush could continue to say he believed that global warming was occurring but make a case that "any specific policy proposals or approaches aimed at addressing global warming must await further scientific inquiry."
...
The Environmental Protection Agency tried one more time to argue that Mr. Bush should not change course.

In a section of a March 9 memo to the White House headed "Global warming science is compelling," agency officials said: "The science is strongest on the fact that carbon dioxide is contributing, and will continue to contribute, to global climate change. The greatest scientific uncertainties concern how fast the climate will change and what will be the regional impacts. Even within these bands of uncertainty, however, it is clear that global warming is an issue that must be addressed."

On March 13, Mr. Bush signed and sent a letter to four Republican senators who had sought clarification of the administration's climate plans. In it, Mr. Bush described the Energy Department study as "important new information that warrants a re-evaluation, especially at a time of rising energy prices and a serious energy shortage."

He said reconsideration of the carbon dioxide curbs was particularly appropriate "given the incomplete state of scientific knowledge of the causes of, and solutions to, global climate change."

The letter also reiterated his longstanding opposition to the Kyoto Protocol, the climate treaty now moving toward enactment in almost all other industrialized countries.

In the next months, the White House set up a series of briefings on climate science and economics for the cabinet and also sought the advice of the National Academy of Sciences. The experts convened by the academy reaffirmed the scientific consensus that recent warming has human causes and that significant risks lie ahead. But the administration's position on what to do has not changed.

Choosing Advisers

Another area where the issue of scientific distortion keeps surfacing is in the composition of advisory panels. In a host of instances documented in news reports and by groups like the Union of Concerned Scientists, candidates have been asked about their politics. In March 2003, the American Association for the Advancement of Science criticized thosequeries, saying in a statement that the practice "compromises the integrity of the process of receiving advice and is inappropriate." Despite three years of charges that it is remaking scientific and medical advisory panels to favor the goals of industry or social conservatives, the White House has continued to ask some panel nominees not only about their political views, but explicitly whether they support Mr. Bush.

One recent candidate was Prof. Sharon L. Smith, an expert on Arctic marine ecology at the University of Miami.

On March 12, she received a call from the White House. She had been nominated to take a seat about to open up on the Arctic Research Commission, a panel of presidential appointees that helps shape research on issues in the far north, including the debate over oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

The woman calling from the White House office of presidential personnel complimented her résumé, Dr. Smith recalled, then asked the first and - as it turned out - only question: "Do you support the president?"

"I was taking notes," Dr. Smith recalled. "I'm thinking I've lost my mind. I was in total shock. I'd never been asked that before."

She responded she was not a fan of Mr. Bush's economic and foreign policies. "That was the end of the interview," she said. "I was removed from consideration instantly."
...

Tilting the Discussion

Some of the loudest criticisms of the administration on climate science have centered on changes to reports and other government documents dealing with the causes and consequences of global warming.

Political appointees have regularly revised news releases on climate from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, or NOAA, altering headlines and opening paragraphs to play down the continuing global warming trend.
...
On Aug. 14, 2003, a news release summarizing July temperature patterns began as a draft with this headline: "NOAA reports record and near-record July heat in the West, cooler than average in the East, global temperature much warmer than average."

When it emerged from NOAA headquarters, it read: "NOAA reports cooler, wetter than average in the East, hot in the West."

Such efforts have continued in recent weeks. Scientists at the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, a leading research center studying climate, worked with public affairs officials last month to finish a release on new studies explaining why Antarctica had experienced cooling while most of the rest of the world had warmed.

The results, just published in a refereed scientific journal, showed that the depletion of the ozone layer over Antarctica had temporarily shifted atmospheric conditions in a way that cooled the region, but that as the layer heals in coming decades, Antarctica would quickly warm.

The headline initially approved by the agency's public affairs office and the scientists was "Cool Antarctica May Warm Rapidly This Century, Study Finds."

The version that finally emerged on Oct. 6 after review by political appointees was titled "Study Shows Potential for Antarctic Climate Change."

More significant than such changes has been the scope and depth of involvement by administration appointees in controlling information flowing through the farthest reaches of government on issues that could undermine policies.
...

The article also contrasts Bush's relationship with scientists to Clinton's, and includes rebuttals of a sort to each example from Bush's science advisor. Here is one of them:

Dr. Marburger argues that when scientific information is flowing through government agencies, the executive branch has every right to sift for inconsistencies and adjust the tone to suit its policies, as long as the result remains factual.

He said the recent ferment, including the attacks from the Union of Concerned Scientists, Democrats and environmental groups, all proved that the system works and that objective scientific information ultimately comes to the surface.

"I think people overestimate the power of government to affect science," he said. "Science has so many self-correcting aspects that I'm not really worried about these things."

[BRussell]

Originally posted by BRussell:
Too much Descartes, too little Locke.

WTF are you talking about?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:

Sorry, but Dubya's opinion means so much more than the opinion of those misguided dolts.

Dubya's opinion means jack compared to "a group of about 60 scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates." I don't care if they are Republican, Democrat, Independent, or Communist.

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
I still don't care for the opinion of a bunch of liberal peacenik so-called 'scientists'. Apparently, not many other people care, either.

Now, THAT is just plain hilarious.

[Spliffdaddy]

newsflash:

we still don't care.

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
newsflash:

we still don't care.

Spliffdaddy :: doesn't care
Moron :: ?

Good SAT question.

[UNTeMac]

It's clear enough that Bush's most powerful political weapon is his resolve and steadfast adherence to his ideals. It's also, unfortunately, his worst flaw in terms of being president. Spliff's comments bear out the ideals of his strongest supporters very well.

"I don't care what people who know what they're talking about say. I'm still right and I'm going to win."

It's same mindset as evolution naysayers and young-earth philosophers etc. I think the Catholic church took 300 some-odd years to pardon Galileo. I wonder how long it'll take these present-day "believers" to come to their senses.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by olePigeon:
Spliffdaddy :: doesn't care
Moron :: ?

Good SAT question.

That one was good.
Before you start questioning the expertise of the best experts in those topics, in Germany we say, you gotta get up earlier than this. Marking them (all of them) as `left-wing morons' is more than stupid.

[Spliffdaddy]

We still don't care.

[Logic]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We still don't care.

It's OK. The US has a history of doing nothing when it comes to stuff like this. The rest of the world will continue to make sure the human race will be able to live on this planet. You might make it more difficult because of you irresponsibility but the rest of the world will solve this. Like always.

[OreoCookie]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We still don't care.

Apparently a bunch of `left-wing nuts' and nobel laureates from America do care

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by Spliffdaddy:
We still don't care.

That's the whole point. Because of your mindless allegiance to Bush you agree with EVERYTHING he does even if it is stupid and wrong in the eyes of everyone else. Keep posting "We still don't care" as it only brings the point home even more. All great minds in history have one thing in common - they are/were open to discussion and new ideas. Exactly the opposite of Bush fanboys. "I don't care what the facts are, I don't care what scientists say, I don't care what research shows. Bush is RIGHT! He CANNOT be wrong!"

[itai195]

Originally posted by OreoCookie:
Apparently a bunch of `left-wing nuts' and nobel laureates from America do care

Oh, you mean the reality-based community... Uphill battle

[ebuddy]

I'd find it more entertaining if the Americans didn't have the ability to totally **** up this planet without even realizing ... and then go blame everyone else when they can't breath the air, drink the water or travel abroad without getting shot at.

I can't breathe the air? Am I even close to not being able to breathe the air even in the most "polluted" places on earth? I can't drink the water? I can't travel abroad without getting shot at? You sound suspiciously like scientists interested in increased research funding.

Oh we got trouble! Right here in RiverCity! It starts with a T, and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pollution.

Snake oil indeed.

[icruise]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I can't breathe the air? Am I even close to not being able to breathe the air even in the most "polluted" places on earth? I can't drink the water? I can't travel abroad without getting shot at? You sound suspiciously like scientists interested in increased research funding.

Oh we got trouble! Right here in RiverCity! It starts with a T, and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pollution.

Snake oil indeed.

So... your position is that pollution doesn't exist?

[Mrjinglesusa]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I can't breathe the air? Am I even close to not being able to breathe the air even in the most "polluted" places on earth? I can't drink the water? I can't travel abroad without getting shot at? You sound suspiciously like scientists interested in increased research funding.

Oh we got trouble! Right here in RiverCity! It starts with a T, and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pollution.

Snake oil indeed.

His point was that pollution is a MAJOR problem here and it is just a matter of time before you WON'T be able to breath the air or drink the water if steps are not taken now. Probably won't happen in your lifetime, hopefully not your children's lifetime, but IT WILL HAPPEN if we do not take the advice of the experts and do something to head it off.

I find it interesting that a lot of people are chastising scientists here. If it weren't for science and scientists we would not have cured polio, discovered DNA, be exploring the universe, we'd all think the earth was flat and the sun revolved around it, we wouldn't have discovered vaccines, be driving cars, have modern medicine, the list goes on. Yeah, snake oil indeed.

[Logic]

Originally posted by ebuddy:
I can't breathe the air? Am I even close to not being able to breathe the air even in the most "polluted" places on earth? I can't drink the water? I can't travel abroad without getting shot at? You sound suspiciously like scientists interested in increased research funding.

Oh we got trouble! Right here in RiverCity! It starts with a T, and that rhymes with P and that stands for Pollution.

Snake oil indeed.

Come to Iceland and breathe the air here. Then compare it to other industrialised areas of the world. You'll noticed how foul your air is and how polluted it is.

And it isn't very common that you can drink water from whatever spring and lake you find. You can do that here.

[olePigeon]

<Zimphire> I don't know what all that science-whoozits crap is, but it's obviously liberal propaganda.</Zimphire>

[olePigeon]

Originally posted by Icruise:
So... your position is that pollution doesn't exist?

Pfft. Nah, that's the hole in the ozone.

[tie]

To follow up on my last message, the NY Times has a new report on how "a White House official who once led the oil industry's fight against limits on greenhouse gases has repeatedly edited government climate reports in ways that play down links between such emissions and global warming, according to internal documents."

In handwritten notes on drafts of several reports issued in 2002 and 2003, the official, Philip A. Cooney, removed or adjusted descriptions of climate research that government scientists and their supervisors, including some senior Bush administration officials, had already approved. In many cases, the changes appeared in the final reports.

The dozens of changes, while sometimes as subtle as the insertion of the phrase "significant and fundamental" before the word "uncertainties," tend to produce an air of doubt about findings that most climate experts say are robust.

Mr. Cooney is chief of staff for the White House Council on Environmental Quality, the office that helps devise and promote administration policies on environmental issues.

Before going to the White House in 2001, he was the "climate team leader" and a lobbyist at the American Petroleum Institute, the largest trade group representing the interests of the oil industry. A lawyer with a bachelor's degree in economics, he has no scientific training.

The documents were obtained by The New York Times from the Government Accountability Project, a nonprofit legal-assistance group for government whistle-blowers.

The project is representing Rick S. Piltz, who resigned in March as a senior associate in the office that coordinates government climate research. That office, now called the Climate Change Science Program, issued the documents that Mr. Cooney edited.

A White House spokeswoman, Michele St. Martin, said yesterday that Mr. Cooney would not be available to comment. "We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman."

In one instance in an October 2002 draft of a regularly published summary of government climate research, "Our Changing Planet," Mr. Cooney amplified the sense of uncertainty by adding the word "extremely" to this sentence: "The attribution of the causes of biological and ecological changes to climate change or variability is extremely difficult."

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Other White House officials said the changes made by Mr. Cooney were part of the normal interagency review that takes place on all documents related to global environmental change. Robert Hopkins, a spokesman for the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy, noted that one of the reports Mr. Cooney worked on, the administration's 10-year plan for climate research, was endorsed by the National Academy of Sciences. And Myron Ebell, who has long campaigned against limits on greenhouse gases as director of climate policy at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, a libertarian group, said such editing was necessary for "consistency" in meshing programs with policy.

But critics said that while all administrations routinely vetted government reports, scientific content in such reports should be reviewed by scientists. Climate experts and representatives of environmental groups, when shown examples of the revisions, said they illustrated the significant if largely invisible influence of Mr. Cooney and other White House officials with ties to energy industries that have long fought greenhouse-gas restrictions.

In a memorandum sent last week to the top officials dealing with climate change at a dozen agencies, Mr. Piltz said the White House editing and other actions threatened to taint the government's $1.8 billion-a-year effort to clarify the causes and consequences of climate change.

"Each administration has a policy position on climate change," Mr. Piltz wrote. "But I have not seen a situation like the one that has developed under this administration during the past four years, in which politicization by the White House has fed back directly into the science program in such a way as to undermine the credibility and integrity of the program."

A senior Environmental Protection Agency scientist who works on climate questions said the White House environmental council, where Mr. Cooney works, had offered valuable suggestions on reports from time to time. But the scientist, who spoke on the condition of anonymity because all agency employees are forbidden to speak with reporters without clearance, said the kinds of changes made by Mr. Cooney had damaged morale. "I have colleagues in other agencies who express the same view, that it has somewhat of a chilling effect and has created a sense of frustration," he said.

Efforts by the Bush administration to highlight uncertainties in science pointing to human-caused warming have put the United States at odds with other nations and with scientific groups at home.

Prime Minister Tony Blair of Britain, who met with President Bush at the White House yesterday, has been trying to persuade him to intensify United States efforts to curb greenhouse gases. Mr. Bush has called only for voluntary measures to slow growth in emissions through 2012.

Yesterday, saying their goal was to influence that meeting, the scientific academies of 11 countries, including those of the United States and Britain, released a joint letter saying "the scientific understanding of climate change is now sufficiently clear to justify nations taking prompt action."

The American Petroleum Institute, where Mr. Cooney worked before going to the White House, has long taken a sharply different view. Starting with the negotiations leading to the Kyoto Protocol climate treaty in 1997, it has promoted the idea that lingering uncertainties in climate science justify delaying restrictions on emissions of carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping smokestack and tailpipe gases.

On learning of the White House revisions, representatives of some environmental groups said the effort to amplify uncertainties in the science was clearly intended to delay consideration of curbs on the gases, which remain an unavoidable byproduct of burning oil and coal.

"They've got three more years, and the only way to control this issue and do nothing about it is to muddy the science," said Eileen Claussen, the president of the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, a private group that has enlisted businesses in programs cutting emissions.

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning.For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

A document showing a similar pattern of changes is the 2003 "Strategic Plan for the United States Climate Change Science Program," a thick report describing the reorganization of government climate research that was requested by Mr. Bush in his first speech on the issue, in June 2001. The document was reviewed by an expert panel assembled in 2003 by the National Academy of Sciences. The scientists largely endorsed the administration's research plan, but they warned that the administration's procedures for vetting reports on climate could result in excessive political interference with science.

Another interesting point in the article, above, is how the political meddling threatens the integrity of the reseearch. We are spending $1.8 billion a year, according to the article (this seems rather high to me, I'm not sure what they are counting exactly), and if politicians are writing over the scientific reports, then they are useless. If all we wanted was a "scientific" report from the oil industry, we wouldn't need to spend anything.

[spacefreak]

From the NY Times story...

In a section on the need for research into how warming might change water availability and flooding, he crossed out a paragraph describing the projected reduction of mountain glaciers and snowpack. His note in the margins explained that this was "straying from research strategy into speculative findings/musings."

Mr. Cooney's alterations can cause clear shifts in meaning. For example, a sentence in the October 2002 draft of "Our Changing Planet" originally read, "Many scientific observations indicate that the Earth is undergoing a period of relatively rapid change." In a neat, compact hand, Mr. Cooney modified the sentence to read, "Many scientific observations point to the conclusion that the Earth may be undergoing a period of relatively rapid change."

Big friggin deal. I always thought that's what "drafts" were for... editing, adjusting, etc. People who review these "drafts" make these notes all over the place.

[spacefreak]

Originally Posted by tie

Another interesting point in the article, above, is how the political meddling threatens the integrity of the reseearch. We are spending $1.8 billion a year, according to the article (this seems rather high to me, I'm not sure what they are counting exactly), and if politicians are writing over the scientific reports, then they are useless. If all we wanted was a "scientific" report from the oil industry, we wouldn't need to spend anything.

What the story leaves out is that the drafts in question are government reports that take into account ALL of all the individual reports that various organizations put out. The individual reports completed by these scientific organizations still stand as theirs. Nobody is changing their reports.

It would be ridiculous to base our nation's policy on one single environmental report put out by only one organization. So the government obtains, reviews, compiles, studies, and summarizes all the individual reports when making their comprehensive report.

Some of you people need to grow up and stop being such weeneies.

[dcmacdaddy]

Originally Posted by spacefreak

From the NY Times story...
Big friggin deal. I always thought that's what "drafts" were for... editing, adjusting, etc. People who review these "drafts" make these notes all over the place.

Yes, having staff review a draft document IS the proper procedure.

Having an administration official, who is NOT a scientist, make changes to the scientific findings of a document is NOT editing. That is administrative interference.

Is this person scientifically qualified to modify "uncertainties" with the qualifiers "significant and fundamental"? If he is not, he should not be making those changes.