Bush administration's apparent lack of scientific integrity

[HomeBrewerDude]

Report on how the Bush administration treats science within the context of policy making.

enjoy.

 

[xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx]

I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

 

[onelove]

homebrew - if Bush isn't a closet creation-scientist, I'll eat my hat.

Among the statement signers are:

Philip W. Anderson*?
David Baltimore*?
Paul Berg*?
Lewis Branscomb
Thomas Eisner*
Jerome Friedman?
Richard Garwin*
Walter Kohn*?
Neal Lane
Leon Lederman*?
Mario Molina?
W.K.H. Panofsky*
F. Sherwood Rowland?
J. Robert Schrieffer*?
Richard Smalley?
Harold E. Varmus*?
Steven Weinberg*?
E.O. Wilson*

* National Medal of Science
? Nobel laureate

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsirelease.html

Galt, do you have a specific comment about UCS? (too "save-the-planet-ey" for ya?)

 

[EagleKeeper]

Yucca Mountain. NV

"will have a comprehensive review all the scientific evidence" - prior to election
"Yucca will be the designated nuclear storage depot - there is no danger" - after the election

Delta time = 1 week.

 

[sMiLeYz]

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx
I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

So, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who writes it or endorses it. It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good.

 

[conjur]

Already been discussed in this thread, eh?

 

[HomeBrewerDude]

Originally posted by: conjur
Already been discussed in this thread, eh?

dat true, but i think the term 'discussed' might be a stretch.

 

[ReiAyanami]

d00d, shrub still thinks there's WMD related materials, objects or shapes in iraq. he failed science in elementary school. and math too. he thinks -$7 trillion is a nice number

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

So, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who writes it or endorses it. It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good.

sMiLeYz is not saying that at all, but your attempted misrepresentation does serve to neatly encapulate the Bush administration's view of scientific advice: "It only matters that it confirms what you already believe . . ."

And, of course, as so amply shown, if they can't find someone to confirm what they already believe, they'll just change and distort the facts. Sad, really . . .

 

[digitalsm]

Originally posted by: HomeBrewerDude
Report on how the Bush administration treats science within the context of policy making.

enjoy.

Whats the big deal?

Both sides have proven they fabricate things, to ramrod their policies through. Its a tried and true method of policy making dating back to before the US was the US, or even exsisted as a British colony.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

<STRONG>So, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who writes it or endorses it. It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good</STRONG>.

<STRONG>sMiLeYz </STRONG>is not saying that at all, but your attempted misrepresentation does serve to neatly encapulate the Bush administration's view of scientific advice: "<STRONG>It only matters that it confirms what you already believe . . ."</STRONG>

And, of course, as so amply shown, if they can't find someone to confirm what they already believe, they'll just change and distort the facts. Sad, really . . .

Read what he said again. The ramifications of what he is saying is that it doesn't matter who wrote it. He is saying that it was informative and confirmed what he already believed. If you disagree, tell me what he was actually saying and how it differs from my interpretation rather than just taking a blind shot at Bush.

 

[DealMonkey]

Can someone please explain how the UCS group has somehow been "discredited?" Did you guys even bother to find out who they are? Link

UCS is an independent nonprofit alliance of more than 100,000 concerned citizens and scientists. We augment rigorous scientific analysis with innovative thinking and committed citizen advocacy to build a cleaner, healthier environment and a safer world.

UCS's programs are the means by which we accomplish this. They are the pressure points translating vision into action. Through them, we connect the best scientific insights with the knowledge and support of an astute citizenry and apply them to the machinery of government at all levels?with results that have set a standard for effective advocacy for decades.

UCS was founded in 1969 by faculty members and students at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology who were concerned about the misuse of science and technology in society. Their statement called for the redirection of scientific research to pressing environmental and social problems.

From that beginning, UCS has become a powerful voice for change. Our core groups of scientists and engineers collaborate with colleagues across the country to conduct technical studies on renewable energy options, the impacts of global warming, the risks of genetically engineered crops, and other related topics. We share the results of our research with policymakers, the news media, and the public.

Our experts work together with citizens across the country to disseminate our findings and alter policies in local communities as well as on the national level.

Our advocates are highly respected in Washington, D.C., as well as in state capitals, and are frequently called to testify before government committees.

The UCS Online Action Network gives citizen the means to keep informed on our issues and to help shape policy by expressing their view to government and corporate decisionmakers.

Through our Sound Science Initiative, thousands of scientists provide the facts on environmental science to government and the media.

Knowing the enormity of the challenge, we actively work in coalition with other environmental groups that share our goals.

 

[Perknose]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

So, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who writes it or endorses it. It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good.

sMiLeYz is not saying that at all, but your attempted misrepresentation does serve to neatly encapulate the Bush administration's view of scientific advice: "It only matters that it confirms what you already believe . . ." And, of course, as so amply shown, if they can't find someone to confirm what they already believe, they'll just change and distort the facts. Sad, really . . .

Read what he said again. <U>The ramifications of what he is saying is that it doesn't matter who wrote it</U>. He is saying that it was informative and confirmed what he already believed. If you disagree, tell me what he was actually saying and how it differs from my interpretation rather than just taking a blind shot at Bush.

Such "ramifications" are in your head, and nowhere in what he said. Please take your own advice, read what he said again yourself, then come back here and quote directly that which he daid that you claim supports such a conclusion on your part, that "he is saying it doesn't matter who wrote it."

For your convenience, here is his entire quote once again: "Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said."

 

[XZeroII]

Ok, I read parts of it and gave up. An example... they talked about how a vast amount of climatic scientists believe in man-made global warming and Bush refuses to acknowledge it and force higher standards to cut back on greenhouse gasses.
Now, I have no problem with them believing in man-made global warming and wanting something done about it, but we have already made HUGE strides in this area. I don't know what more they could possibly want Bush to do. These people may be geniuses in their respectable fields, but they don't know jack about government and how to run a country. There are thousands of factors to consider when deciding on this stuff and their belief that we should cut these emmisions w/o regard to other factors is foolish. There are human factors (job loss is a big one) and economic factors (it will cause price increases and cost of living increases) just to name a couple. If they don't understand these issues and how they affect their proposals, then they shouldn't be criticizing.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: Perknose

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: sMiLeYz

Originally posted by: xxxxxJohnGaltxxxxx I got to this part--"Union of Concerned Scientists"--on the title page and closed Adobe; thanks anyway.

Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said.

<STRONG>So, what you are saying is that it doesn't matter who writes it or endorses it. It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good</STRONG>.

<STRONG>sMiLeYz </STRONG>is not saying that at all, but your attempted misrepresentation does serve to neatly encapulate the Bush administration's view of scientific advice: "<STRONG>It only matters that it confirms what you already believe . . ."</STRONG> And, of course, as so amply shown, if they can't find someone to confirm what they already believe, they'll just change and distort the facts. Sad, really . . .

Read what he said again. <STRONG>The ramifications of what he is saying is that it doesn't matter who wrote it</STRONG>. He is saying that it was informative and confirmed what he already believed. If you disagree, tell me what he was actually saying and how it differs from my interpretation rather than just taking a blind shot at Bush.

Such "ramifications" are in your head, and nowhere in what he said. Please take your own advice, read what he said again yourself, then come back here and quote directly that which he daid that you claim supports such a conclusion on your part, that "he is saying it doesn't matter who wrote it."

For your convenience, here is his entire quote once again: "Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said."

What??? I made the statement, and you disagreed! I want to know why. I asked you to tell me what he was actually saying and how it differes from my interpretation. If you can't do that, then I will assume that my interpretation is correct. Simple as that.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: conjur
Already been discussed in this thread, eh?

Yeah - this is repost X2.

CkG

 

[charrison]

linkage

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Bush administration has done all that UCS accuses it of doing. This problem is not particular to Republican administrations?the very linkage of government and science almost guarantees some chicanery. Let's recall the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. In 1993, Princeton University physicist William Happer was fired from the Department of Energy because he disagreed with Vice President Al Gore's views on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rejected the finding from the Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health which declared that the intentional creation of human embryos for genetic research was ethical. Clinton simply banned any federal funding for such research.

And in 1993, the EPA used a meta-analysis of a number of studies to find that second-hand smoke caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. That may well be, but the EPA had to put its thumb on the scales in order to get the result it wanted. The agency included just 11 out of 30 known studies on second-hand smoke in its meta-analysis, and even then found no increased risk to non-smokers at the 95 percent confidence level that had been the traditional agency standard. So the agency simply moved the confidence level from 95 percent to 90 percent in order to get the result it wanted.

At the time, I talked to a member of the EPA's scientific advisory board, an epidemiologist working at a leading east coast university who requested anonymity. He told me that he knew it was inadvisable to change the confidence level. He didn't oppose the change, though, because he was afraid he would be kicked off the board if he didn't go along. "I wanted to remain relevant to the policy process," he explained. He was also an EPA grant recipient.

The UCS report did not cite a single instance of where science was "abused" in furtherance of a policy that it favored. To its mind only political conservatives misuse science.

I dont know why you people think that scientist are without political agenda.

I read the posted pdf, it contains quite a bit of information that has been twisted to fit their agenda.

 

[Perknose]

What??? I made the statement, and you disagreed! I want to know why. <U>I asked you to tell me what he was actually saying and how it differes from my interpretation.</U> If you can't do that, then I will assume that my interpretation is correct. Simple as that.

Are you really that dense?

Your interpretation,"he is saying it doesn't matter who wrote it."

sMiLeYz statement, in it's entirety, "Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said."

Again, NOTHING, not one word, in his statement supports or even implies your conclusion.

Any adult with even minimal reading comprehension skills can see this, why can't you?

If, nevertheless, you obdurately continue to "assume that my interpretation is correct" then you are truly as "simple as that".

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: Perknose

What??? I made the statement, and you disagreed! I want to know why. <STRONG>I asked you to tell me what he was actually saying and how it differes from my interpretation.</STRONG> If you can't do that, then I will assume that my interpretation is correct. Simple as that.

Are you really that dense?

Your interpretation,"he is saying it doesn't matter who wrote it."

<STRONG>sMiLeYz </STRONG>statement, in it's entirety, "Well the rest of us that are open minded enough to read past credits, I found it rather informative and confirmed much of what I've believed, and what many others have said."

Again, NOTHING, not one word, in his statement supports <EM>or even implies</EM> your conclusion.

Any adult with even minimal reading comprehension skills can see this, why can't you?

If, nevertheless, you obdurately continue to "assume that my interpretation is correct" then you are truly as "simple as that".

If I am so far off, then why can't you even tell me how what I said is different? All you do is insult me and repeat that nothing he said supports my conclusion. I ALREADY KNOW YOU THINK THAT. And if you had half the brains you claim to have, you would understand that my interpretation stands as correct until you can actually provide me with some evidence that it is different. Insulting me does not count.

So, let me ask you ONE LAST TIME. WHAT DID HE SAY THAT DIFFERS FROM WHAT I SAID?
(for god's sake, it's like talking to a 5 year old :roll

 

[Gaard]

It only matters that it confirms what you already believe and that makes it good.

Where do you get this, Commander?

 

[ReiAyanami]

smoke contains carcinogens. carcinogens cause cancer.

i cant beleive they had to spend money on studies to figure that out.

and you're right, those noble laureates are probably the evil mad scientists bent on destroying the world by warning everyone that global warming is indeed real!!

the audacity of those scientists to challenge bush and his spotless record of truth telling

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: charrison
linkage

For the sake of argument, let's assume that the Bush administration has done all that UCS accuses it of doing. This problem is not particular to Republican administrations?the very linkage of government and science almost guarantees some chicanery. Let's recall the halcyon days of the Clinton administration. In 1993, Princeton University physicist William Happer was fired from the Department of Energy because he disagreed with Vice President Al Gore's views on stratospheric ozone depletion. In 1994, President Bill Clinton rejected the finding from the Embryo Research Panel of the National Institutes of Health which declared that the intentional creation of human embryos for genetic research was ethical. Clinton simply banned any federal funding for such research.

And in 1993, the EPA used a meta-analysis of a number of studies to find that second-hand smoke caused lung cancer in adult non-smokers and serious respiratory problems in children. That may well be, but the EPA had to put its thumb on the scales in order to get the result it wanted. The agency included just 11 out of 30 known studies on second-hand smoke in its meta-analysis, and even then found no increased risk to non-smokers at the 95 percent confidence level that had been the traditional agency standard. So the agency simply moved the confidence level from 95 percent to 90 percent in order to get the result it wanted.

At the time, I talked to a member of the EPA's scientific advisory board, an epidemiologist working at a leading east coast university who requested anonymity. He told me that he knew it was inadvisable to change the confidence level. He didn't oppose the change, though, because he was afraid he would be kicked off the board if he didn't go along. "I wanted to remain relevant to the policy process," he explained. He was also an EPA grant recipient.

The UCS report did not cite a single instance of where science was "abused" in furtherance of a policy that it favored. To its mind only political conservatives misuse science.

I dont know why you people think that scientist are without political agenda.

I read the posted pdf, it contains quite a bit of information that has been twisted to fit their agenda.

Sheds an interesting light on the subject. Nice find.

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

While govt sponsorship has obviously led to some scientific chicanery in the past, the current all-out assault by the Bushies has many in the scientific community very upset, rightfully so.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

Don't even bother, JohnGalt, it's from the Godless and evil Democrats. For the rest of you, click on any of the categories in the left hand box- try "condoms", "reproductive health", or "abstinence only sex education" for starters...

The only science the Bushies favor is whatever they can create to serve their agenda- to them, everything is political- they already know "the truth", and attempt to substitute ontology for research...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
While govt sponsorship has obviously led to some scientific chicanery in the past, the current all-out assault by the Bushies has many in the scientific community very upset, rightfully so.

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/

Don't even bother, JohnGalt, it's from the Godless and evil Democrats. For the rest of you, click on any of the categories in the left hand box- try "condoms", "reproductive health", or "abstinence only sex education" for starters...

The only science the Bushies favor is whatever they can create to serve their agenda- to them, everything is political- they already know "the truth", and attempt to substitute ontology for research...

- "all-out assult"

CkG