Bush administration's apparent lack of scientific integrity

[DealMonkey]

I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

They need a date and they saw how kucinich was using politics to try to score chicks. I guess they figured if it would work for kucinich it might work for someone equally as .... well....

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

Ahh, CkG, another of your contentless posts- two, actually. Your empty derision merely proves my point.

Thanks.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Ahh, CkG, another of your contentless posts- two, actually. Your empty derision merely proves my point.

Thanks.

proves your ~! rant? Hardly.

CkG

 

[Jhhnn]

And now three, CkG- you're on a roll, apparently- care to offer up any evidence to the contrary? How about anything even resembling authoritative opinion? Maybe some praise from the scientific community in general for our our great leader's support?

Seems like you've made your own decision, like Bush, and that's to keep your head buried in the sand, parrot the party line at any cost...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
And now three, CkG- you're on a roll, apparently- care to offer up any evidence to the contrary? How about anything even resembling authoritative opinion? Maybe some praise from the scientific community in general for our our great leader's support?

How about something from you besides mindless anti-bush drivel? Oh wait....

I already pointed out that charrison's link shed an interesting light on the subject. Oh, and once you find proof that global warming is a man-made thing, please let me know because then I'll start deciding if trying to mess with it further is a viable option. Until then you'll have to settle for me supporting and advocating more wind farming and the furthering of Bio-fuels thank you very much.

Now back to your regularly scheduled Bush-bashing....

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Bush needs to keep his fscking hands out of the panels trying to manupulate the outcome.

If he doesnt like what they say, then he can ignore it. Stop trying to screw the data.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
smoke contains carcinogens. carcinogens cause cancer.

And so SHS causes cancer?

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
smoke contains carcinogens. carcinogens cause cancer.

And so SHS causes cancer?

Uh oh.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: ReiAyanami
smoke contains carcinogens. carcinogens cause cancer.

And so SHS causes cancer?

Uh oh.

You've unleashed the beast.

 

[Jhhnn]

Your citing "ReasonOnline", CkG, doesn't exactly impress- it's just the usual "But Clinton!" red herring argument from Bushfans, and you know it.

They do have a way with words, however, being part of the right wing spin machine. Funny that they never accused Bush of actually advancing the cause of science- I can't imagine why...

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

I don't think there is anything wrong with what they are saying. What ticks me off is that EVERYONE thinks that their issue is #1 priority and everyone gets upset when they are not given our government's undivided attention on a subject. For example, back when we were in a recession, you had people ranting and raving up and down about how our economy should be our #1 priority and everything else should be put on hold. Now that the economy is recovering, you have a large group complaining about the debt and how the debt should be the #1 priority that we should be focusing on. Then you have others who think we should make security our #1 concern. Others think that healthcare should be #1, and more yet think that the environment should be #1 on our list. Obviously we can't do it all at once, yet each and every one of these groups (and more) start ranting and raving about how they aren't being taken seriously and complain about how they are being blown off. Look at these environmentalists, they are complaining about Bush not doing anything for the environment. Well what do they want him to do??? Companies are already outsourcing because costs are too high, and these environmentalists want us to impose more regulations on them???!!!! That will just raise their costs, which they will pass onto the employees in the form of layoffs. This then ticks off the unions and then people whinning about the economy and how jobs are being lost and outsourced, and we are back where we started! We've (for the moment) satified one group and ticked off an entire new group. THAT is what really irks me. Why can't people look at the big picture and not their own little corner of the world? It's like these people were on the can the day the teacher was teaching about cause and effect.

I have no problem with their findings and their trying to raise awareness. What I have a problem with is their blaming Bush for ignoring them (for the reasons I mentioned above). Let's grow up people and realize that things are not as simple as they appear on the outside.

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

Funding is often an issue. You cant do research without funding. Things that are politically hot get funded.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your citing "ReasonOnline", CkG, doesn't exactly impress- it's just the usual "But Clinton!" red herring argument from Bushfans, and you know it.

They do have a way with words, however, being part of the right wing spin machine. Funny that they never accused Bush of actually advancing the cause of science- I can't imagine why...

And yours is the usual red-faced spittle spewing anti-Bush bleating.

But please do let me know when you figure out if "global warming" (or is it Global cooling...no that was over 20 years ago) is man made so I can "worry" about wether or not we should mess with it further. But in the mean time I'll stop well short of hugging trees.

CkG

 

[Bowfinger]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your citing "ReasonOnline", CkG, doesn't exactly impress- it's just the usual "But Clinton!" red herring argument from Bushfans, and you know it.

They do have a way with words, however, being part of the right wing spin machine. Funny that they never accused Bush of actually advancing the cause of science- I can't imagine why...

And yours is the usual red-faced spittle spewing anti-Bush bleating.

But please do let me know when you figure out if "global warming" (or is it Global cooling...no that was over 20 years ago) is man made so I can "worry" about wether or not we should mess with it further. But in the mean time I'll stop well short of hugging trees.

CkG

"Red-faced, spittle spewing"? C'mon Cad, that's not at all warranted. You may disagree with the man, but your venomous response is way out of line for his mild-mannered response.

I'd mention you didn't address his points, but I don't want to spew spittle all over my monitor.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

I don't think there is anything wrong with what they are saying. What ticks me off is that EVERYONE thinks that their issue is #1 priority and everyone gets upset when they are not given our government's undivided attention on a subject. For example, back when we were in a recession, you had people ranting and raving up and down about how our economy should be our #1 priority and everything else should be put on hold. Now that the economy is recovering, you have a large group complaining about the debt and how the debt should be the #1 priority that we should be focusing on. Then you have others who think we should make security our #1 concern. Others think that healthcare should be #1, and more yet think that the environment should be #1 on our list. Obviously we can't do it all at once, yet each and every one of these groups (and more) start ranting and raving about how they aren't being taken seriously and complain about how they are being blown off. Look at these environmentalists, they are complaining about Bush not doing anything for the environment. Well what do they want him to do??? Companies are already outsourcing because costs are too high, and these environmentalists want us to impose more regulations on them???!!!! That will just raise their costs, which they will pass onto the employees in the form of layoffs. This then ticks off the unions and then people whinning about the economy and how jobs are being lost and outsourced, and we are back where we started! We've (for the moment) satified one group and ticked off an entire new group. THAT is what really irks me. Why can't people look at the big picture and not their own little corner of the world? It's like these people were on the can the day the teacher was teaching about cause and effect.

I have no problem with their findings and their trying to raise awareness. What I have a problem with is their blaming Bush for ignoring them (for the reasons I mentioned above). Let's grow up people and realize that things are not as simple as they appear on the outside.

Now the question is what happens when an administration WANTS a particular outcome, so changes members around to get the "science" it wants, then says it is basing policy on science?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Your citing "ReasonOnline", CkG, doesn't exactly impress- it's just the usual "But Clinton!" red herring argument from Bushfans, and you know it.

They do have a way with words, however, being part of the right wing spin machine. Funny that they never accused Bush of actually advancing the cause of science- I can't imagine why...

And yours is the usual red-faced spittle spewing anti-Bush bleating.

But please do let me know when you figure out if "global warming" (or is it Global cooling...no that was over 20 years ago) is man made so I can "worry" about wether or not we should mess with it further. But in the mean time I'll stop well short of hugging trees.

CkG

"Red-faced, spittle spewing"? C'mon Cad, that's not at all warranted. You may disagree with the man, but your venomous response is way out of line for his mild-mannered response.

I'd mention you didn't address his points, but I don't want to spew spittle all over my monitor.

I've already responded.
See his comments I originally

ed at. My response was warranted. He's as bad as the whiners who think Bush "didn't listen to them" enough. They need to get over themselves already.

CkG

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Bowfinger
"Red-faced, spittle spewing"? C'mon Cad, that's not at all warranted. You may disagree with the man, but your venomous response is way out of line for his mild-mannered response.

I'd mention you didn't address his points, but I don't want to spew spittle all over my monitor.

Cad's trying out for "Ultra Quiet Jr" - if you dehumanize your opponent sufficiently, it no longer matters what they're saying or whether they have a valid argument.

So, it sounds like some who have a problem with these scientists tend to land on one of these explanations, at least so far: (1.) The scientists are generating false environmental crisis in order to get more funding. Their findings and positions are therefore suspect. (2.) What these science groups are saying isn't necessarily wrong, it's just that they're competing with many other worthy things that need our government's attention. Plus, environmentally-friendly policy causes increased cost for business and will only drive more business offshore. (3.) These science groups have arrived at an opinion that portrays Bush in a bad light. Right or wrong, they must be discredited as "politically motivated."

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: XZeroII

Originally posted by: DealMonkey
I'm curious, for those who are convinced that these science orgs are politically-motivated, what compelling reason would a group of scientists have for making up global issues like ozone depletion, global warming, environmental crisis, etc.? What is their motivation for falsely bringing attention to these issues? Further, what is their motivation for these (in your opinion) baseless accusations against the Bush administration?

I don't think there is anything wrong with what they are saying. What ticks me off is that EVERYONE thinks that their issue is #1 priority and everyone gets upset when they are not given our government's undivided attention on a subject. For example, back when we were in a recession, you had people ranting and raving up and down about how our economy should be our #1 priority and everything else should be put on hold. Now that the economy is recovering, you have a large group complaining about the debt and how the debt should be the #1 priority that we should be focusing on. Then you have others who think we should make security our #1 concern. Others think that healthcare should be #1, and more yet think that the environment should be #1 on our list. Obviously we can't do it all at once, yet each and every one of these groups (and more) start ranting and raving about how they aren't being taken seriously and complain about how they are being blown off. Look at these environmentalists, they are complaining about Bush not doing anything for the environment. Well what do they want him to do??? Companies are already outsourcing because costs are too high, and these environmentalists want us to impose more regulations on them???!!!! That will just raise their costs, which they will pass onto the employees in the form of layoffs. This then ticks off the unions and then people whinning about the economy and how jobs are being lost and outsourced, and we are back where we started! We've (for the moment) satified one group and ticked off an entire new group. THAT is what really irks me. Why can't people look at the big picture and not their own little corner of the world? It's like these people were on the can the day the teacher was teaching about cause and effect.

I have no problem with their findings and their trying to raise awareness. What I have a problem with is their blaming Bush for ignoring them (for the reasons I mentioned above). Let's grow up people and realize that things are not as simple as they appear on the outside.

Now the question is what happens when an administration WANTS a particular outcome, so changes members around to get the "science" it wants, then says it is basing policy on science?

What happens when, you ask? When has it been any other way? That is the reality of our world. It's been going on for as long as the world has been turning, yet you are just noticing this now? Clinton did it, Bush Sr. did it, Regan did it, Carter did it, etc... They all put people who believed what they believe into power. Bush happens to side with the scientists who don't believe global warming is a man-made thing (or at least a largely man-mande thing). Believe it or not, there are lots of reputable scientists who believe this and they have evidence to back it up. But that is not the point that I am trying to make and I am getting off topic.

 

[Jhhnn]

Well, gentlemen, I think we've established that CkG really hates it when he's busted for his usual empty posts and name-calling trollery, or when his boy, Dubya, gets caught for altering the evidence, as I pointed out with the link to policy changes concerning human sexuality.

Hell, maybe the Navy will quit handing out condoms to sailors on shore leave because of the doubtful efficacy and negative effects on fleet morality...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
Well, gentlemen, I think we've established that CkG really hates it when he's busted for his usual empty posts and name-calling trollery, or when his boy, Dubya, gets caught for altering the evidence, as I pointed out with the link to policy changes concerning human sexuality.

Hell, maybe the Navy will quit handing out condoms to sailors on shore leave because of the doubtful efficacy and negative effects on fleet morality...

As opposed to your trash which as I've pointed out is nothing more than whining by a couple scientist about supposedly not being taken seriously.

Dunno what your little Navy thing has to do with anything - maybe next time you won't fill your post with empty noise.

CkG

 

[naddicott]

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Believe it or not, there are lots of reputable scientists who believe this and they have evidence to back it up.

I'll take "not" thanks. The last time I participated in one of the 10+ page topic on that subject here, the folks making the "reputable scientists" assertion came up with a pitiful number of actual names that could hold up to any level scrutiny, and a large number of documented quacks at unheard of community colleges / foundations funded by conservative think tanks.

Not that I have any interest in repeating that exercise. Hypothetically, I could get universities to send notarized transcripts directly to you proving that your "reputable scientists" never studied any field remotely related to climate science, and it still wouldn't change your mind or the minds of those in the Bush administration. Much less effort at this point to cast my ballot in November and be done with it.

It is convenient that there are Nobel laureates who have come to similar conclusions about the policy implications of climate research as the conclusions I've reached by examining the studies myself, but at this point I'm as closed minded to opposing arguments from the AT crowd as the neocons are, so don't bother digging up all the usual suspect links for my sake.

As for one of the early posters saying he stopped reading when he realized a statement disagreeing with his politics was written by Nobel Laureates and Medal of Science winners - smart move. If you want to keep your world view unchanged, stay as far away as you can from contradicting writings authored by your intellectual superiors.

[edit: formatting]

 

[FrodoB]

Scientific integrity does not exist in the global warming community. Many of these morons that spout off this nonsense are indeed doing it for political reasons because it's easy to make the uneducated masses believe in it. There is no firm evidence to prove or disprove it. The fact is that our planet goes through constant - sometimes chaotic and violent - changes. It has gone through change since the planet was formed. At different points in history the world was MUCH warmer and more "tropical" than it currently is.

 

[XZeroII]

Originally posted by: naddicott

Originally posted by: XZeroII
Believe it or not, there are lots of reputable scientists who believe this and they have evidence to back it up.

I'll take "not" thanks. The last time I participated in one of the 10+ page topic on that subject here, the folks making the "reputable scientists" assertion came up with a pitiful number of actual names that could hold up to any level scrutiny, and a large number of documented quacks at unheard of community colleges / foundations funded by conservative think tanks.

Not that I have any interest in repeating that exercise. Hypothetically, I could get universities to send notarized transcripts directly to you proving that your "reputable scientists" never studied any field remotely related to climate science, and it still wouldn't change your mind or the minds of those in the Bush administration. Much less effort at this point to cast my ballot in November and be done with it.

It is convenient that there are Nobel laureates who have come to similar conclusions about the policy implications of climate research as the conclusions I've reached by examining the studies myself, but at this point I'm as closed minded to opposing arguments from the AT crowd as the neocons are, so don't bother digging up all the usual suspect links for my sake.

As for one of the early posters saying he stopped reading when he realized a statement disagreeing with his politics was written by Nobel Laureates and Medal of Science winners - smart move. If you want to keep your world view unchanged, stay as far away as you can from contradicting writings authored by your intellectual superiors.

[edit: formatting]

But that is not the point that I am trying to make and I am getting off topic.

Did you miss that part? I put that in for one reason. That one reason is so that someone wouldn't do what you just did and that is to ignore the bulk of what I was saying and going off and attacking an example that I gave. I KNEW that someone would.
To respond to you, I have no doubt that there is lots of evidence pointing toward global warming (which I pointed out). However, it is a proven psycological fact that people will see only what they want to see, and ignore what they don't want to see. Your research could have been biased (unconsiously). On the other hand, you could be right. I am not saying you are or you are not. What I am saying is that there are different viewpoints and no one will ever believe everything that you believe in. That is how our system of gov't works. You elect people into office that you think will share your views. If you believe in global warming and Bush does not, you have to ask yourself if you want him in office. If not, elect someone else. But saying that he is 'making stuff up' is foolish. Just because someone believes something that you don't doesn't make them foolish and doesn't mean that they are making stuff up. You are just blinded (like everyone else in the world) by your own views, as I mentioned earlier so you can't see the opposing side.

Remember, Aristotle was considered to be an intellectual superior way back when and he was dead wrong about a lot of things. Just because someone won a nobel prize or has an IQ of 160 doesn't automatically mean that they are right.

 

[onelove]

Originally posted by: FrodoB
Scientific integrity does not exist in the global warming community. Many of these morons that spout off this nonsense are indeed doing it for political reasons because it's easy to make the uneducated masses believe in it. There is no firm evidence to prove or disprove it. The fact is that our planet goes through constant - sometimes chaotic and violent - changes. It has gone through change since the planet was formed. At different points in history the world was MUCH warmer and more "tropical" than it currently is.

:+(
at those points in history referred to, there were not 6.5 billion people depending on the earth's ability to produce enough food and water to support them. Those dramatic climate changes caused mass migrations and die-offs.

If you look back at history, has the role of science been to "make the uneducated masses believe in it"? (inferring some kind of deliberate mis-information or malice) Copernicus? To the contrary, science has been periodically persecuted as heresy. Does the Sun revolve around the earth?

The people saying these things have devoted their lives to science. I don't think I'm out on a limb to say that each of the signatories listed above are smarter than you. The least that us uneducated masses can do is not dismiss their statements out of hand [Galt].

lets all try to keep an open mind and be good stewards.