Of course it 'confirmed much of what you believed'...that's why you read past the "Union of Concerned Scientists' disclaimer.
Of course it 'confirmed much of what you believed'...that's why you read past the "Union of Concerned Scientists' disclaimer.
I'm not saying we should be closed-minded about it. The fact of the matter is that nobody knows the human impact on the global temperature and those claiming to know have an agenda. Our own climate records go back only 200 years compared to the billions of years this planet has been in existence. Do we humans have an effect on a microscale (cities, metro areas)? Of course. Do we have a planetary effect? We don't know. A single volcano eruption can have more of an effect on the planet than 200 years of industrialization.
After reading your link to the article at reason.com, I have a couple of points to make:
1.) The author, Ronald Bailey, is the author of "Global Warming and Other Eco Myths" -- he most certainly has an axe to grind with the issue.
2.) He cites the much-overused excuse, "But Clinton..." and gives 3 examples of what he purports to be similar abuses of science during the Clinton administrations. He only has 3? Right off the bat, you could easily say there are many times that many examples from the current Bush administration.
3.) The author attempts to use the "two wrongs make a right" argument, claiming that the politicizing of science has been going on for a long time and therefore why make a big deal out of it now?
4.) Further, he insinuates that where were these scientists during previous administrations? Why weren't they criticizing previous administrations for the same thing? Well, for starters, the report just released by the UCS is about the CURRENT administration. I don't have any idea either way if they've done reports on previous administrations. Perhaps they have - I don't know. At the very least, I would expect the UCS report on the current administration to cover ONLY the current administration. That seems logical.
Certainly Ronald Bailey is unable to offer an impartial perspective because he's coming from the extreme on the other side. Who knows? Perhaps the more people he convinces that global warming and other scientific issues are simply "myths" the more books he can sell. Seems like a good motivation to me.
Wait, there's more! Bailey is a writer and "adjunct scholar" at CEI, the Competitive Enterprise Institute:
CEI.org
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of nearly 40 policy experts and other staff.
Somehow I think if the CEI and the UCS ever got together for a little in-person mixer, the entire universe would implode.
CEI.org
The Competitive Enterprise Institute is a non-profit public policy organization dedicated to the principles of free enterprise and limited government. We believe that consumers are best helped not by government regulation but by being allowed to make their own choices in a free marketplace. Since its founding in 1984, CEI has grown into a $3,000,000 institution with a team of nearly 40 policy experts and other staff.
Somehow I think if the CEI and the UCS ever got together for a little in-person mixer, the entire universe would implode.
I don't understand this - as in, they have an agenda to spread the word about what their research results are? or do you mean because they are liberal/elitist/intellectuals? To me it seems like if my life work showed something that the world should know about, I'd want to make sure to spread the word... why do you say they have an agenda and what is their motivation?
as you stated in your prior post, there are records of climate shifts showing ice ages and warmer periods. Climate records are available through ice cores, etc., so our climate record extends far beyond 200 years (I see your narrower point, that written _American_ records only go back 200 years, tho)
this is true, cataclysmic eruptions/impacts/sea level changes can have drastic effects. That is not in dispute.
The thread is about the interplay between science and policy. Specifically:
EDIT: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/index.html
Ok, I'll concede that many scientists probably do not have an agenda, but some do. More importantly, the media reporting climate news does indeed have an agenda. We're bombarded by reports about Alaska warming, parts of Antarctica warming, ice sheets cracking, tropical mountain glaciers melting, etc... while other news such as the fact that Greenland has been cooling for 30 years, a significant chunck of Antarctica is COOLING, northeast Canada is cooling, and other non-global warming news all go unreported. Over the years there have been scientists that have had opposing views about global warming. Apparently you enjoy sticking your head in the sand and hear what you want to hear. Nobody knows what's happening. Do I think we should be more mindful of our effect on the planet? Of course! This country has made a lot of progress and there is a lot of work ahead of us in all facets regarding the environment and the planet in general. Does the administration lie about these sorts of things? Probably. Do people on the opposite side over-exaggerate? Probably. Nothing is conclusive right now. We do not know our temperature effect on this planet.
sMiLeYz
Platinum Member
- Feb 3, 2003
- 2,696
- 0
- 76
I've actually read stuff that actually has an agenda, like i dunno say... NewsMax, Ann Coulter's rantings, etc. I don't agree with it doesn't mean I won't even consider what they have to say.
I think in your case, you chose to be ignorant. Maybe because what they have to say might affect your preconcieved notion of who George W. Bush actually is.
And I personally think you are afraid that the article, might challenge your perceptions.
It's the same type of ignorance that perpetuates the myth of the liberal media, because whether or not it is the truth... conservatives can chose to dismiss if it challenges their perceptions.
Yes, Galt is a model dittohead, never reading anything that challenges his narrow belief system. Good lord, wouldn't want to be exposed to both sides of the issue now would you?
While environmental scientists may not have definitive proof of global warming and some of these other issues, I would tend to error on the side of caution when it comes to the environment. If they're right, then we should make every effort to clean up our act because if we wait for definitive proof one way or another, it may be too late. If they're wrong, then the worst we've done is kept our environment clean -- not such a bad thing.
On the other side of the issue, the motives of the anti-global warming crowd seems pretty clear: Corporate America and U.S. businesses cannot afford the additional costs to keep our nation's environment clean and safe. Instead they pass on the costs to the public at-large. It's pretty hard to miss the motive and frankly, I don't care if U.S. business has to pay to play. I'd rather rather have a healthy environment than yet another strip mine polluting every river and forest in a 20-mile radius. Easy decision.
re: warming
Much of the media has a liberal bias, but more than that, there is a kind of "groupthink" (this may not really be the right term) that leads to overreporting some issues (crime, etc). An informed decision cannot be based on headlines from the print/TV media. The head-in-sand charge is unsupported.
re: distorting findings/manipulating underlying science to align results with predetermined political decisions/undermining the independence of science advisory panels/nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the scientific mainstream or with industry ties/disbanding science advisory committees altogether:
this is the point of the thread. meddling of the kind that is complained about is effectively censorship of scientific inquiry, or at least bastardization of the process. EDIT: bold, this is the whole point.
More damage control attempted:
Bush's Science Aide Rejects Claims of Distorted Facts
The White House issued a detailed rebuttal yesterday to accusations by an advocacy group and 60 prominent scientists that the Bush administration had distorted or suppressed scientific information to suit its politics.
In a letter to Congress, which had requested a White House response, Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush, said most of the accusations were false and in some cases "preposterous."
In February, the advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has long criticized administration policies on issues like biotechnology, global warming and nuclear power, released a 38-page report, finding, "There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."
The report was endorsed by 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and people who had served in past Republican administrations.
Yesterday, Dr. Marburger rejected almost every point. "The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement," he wrote.
In a few places, he said, the administration had erred, but he added that the mistakes had nothing to do with a lack of scientific integrity.
For instance, he agreed that the Environmental Protection Agency had included text from a document prepared by lawyers for the utilities industry in the preamble of a proposed rule restricting power-plant pollution. But that text, he said, had no bearing "on the integrity of the science used by E.P.A."
Yesterday, scientists and experts not directly involved in the debate said the matter was not settled.
"The scientific community delivered a hard message and he has responded on behalf of the administration and on behalf of his own views in a thorough way," said Dr. Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief of the journal Science and commissioner of food and drugs under President Jimmy Carter.
The original report can be read on the Web at www.ucsusa.org and the administration's response at www.ostp.gov.
One significant accusation in the group's report was that the administration, in dealing with a wide array of scientific advisory panels, had often dismissed experts, or selected others, because of their views on contentious subjects.
Dr. Marburger said that the White House was determined to maintain balance on such committees and that asking for experts' views on issues was a way to achieve diversity.
But he said, "The accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous."
He noted that he himself was "a lifelong Democrat."
The scientists' group also accused the administration of revising scientific reports to make them mesh better with White House policy. A notable example was a heavily edited section on climate change in a draft E.P.A. report on the environment last year: the White House removed almost any finding pointing to a human link to warming global temperatures. After a battle with the White House, the agency dropped the entire section, leaving a hole in what was supposed to be an overview of environmental trends.
Yesterday, Dr. Marburger said the section was dropped because more voluminous reports on climate change were in the works.
After a quick review of the White House rebuttal, which was released in the afternoon with no notice, Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell who is chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the group would take a fresh look at all the issues.
"It's possible there are things we got wrong," Dr. Gottfried said. "We're not infallible, like the Vatican or the White House. But I don't think there's any reason to think we got the big picture wrong. In fact, our case is stronger now than when we produced that report."
He did not back down from the group's contention that science was more abused by the current administration than by its predecessors.
"I think the average age of those who signed the letter is well over 60," Dr. Gottfried said. "We've seen many an administration come and go, and many have served in those administrations. When we say that this pattern is, in extent, unprecedented we mean that."
Bush's Science Aide Rejects Claims of Distorted Facts
The White House issued a detailed rebuttal yesterday to accusations by an advocacy group and 60 prominent scientists that the Bush administration had distorted or suppressed scientific information to suit its politics.
In a letter to Congress, which had requested a White House response, Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush, said most of the accusations were false and in some cases "preposterous."
In February, the advocacy group, the Union of Concerned Scientists, which has long criticized administration policies on issues like biotechnology, global warming and nuclear power, released a 38-page report, finding, "There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented."
The report was endorsed by 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates and people who had served in past Republican administrations.
Yesterday, Dr. Marburger rejected almost every point. "The accusations in the document are inaccurate, and certainly do not justify the sweeping conclusions of either the document or the accompanying statement," he wrote.
In a few places, he said, the administration had erred, but he added that the mistakes had nothing to do with a lack of scientific integrity.
For instance, he agreed that the Environmental Protection Agency had included text from a document prepared by lawyers for the utilities industry in the preamble of a proposed rule restricting power-plant pollution. But that text, he said, had no bearing "on the integrity of the science used by E.P.A."
Yesterday, scientists and experts not directly involved in the debate said the matter was not settled.
"The scientific community delivered a hard message and he has responded on behalf of the administration and on behalf of his own views in a thorough way," said Dr. Donald Kennedy, the editor in chief of the journal Science and commissioner of food and drugs under President Jimmy Carter.
The original report can be read on the Web at www.ucsusa.org and the administration's response at www.ostp.gov.
One significant accusation in the group's report was that the administration, in dealing with a wide array of scientific advisory panels, had often dismissed experts, or selected others, because of their views on contentious subjects.
Dr. Marburger said that the White House was determined to maintain balance on such committees and that asking for experts' views on issues was a way to achieve diversity.
But he said, "The accusation of a litmus test that must be met before someone can serve on an advisory panel is preposterous."
He noted that he himself was "a lifelong Democrat."
The scientists' group also accused the administration of revising scientific reports to make them mesh better with White House policy. A notable example was a heavily edited section on climate change in a draft E.P.A. report on the environment last year: the White House removed almost any finding pointing to a human link to warming global temperatures. After a battle with the White House, the agency dropped the entire section, leaving a hole in what was supposed to be an overview of environmental trends.
Yesterday, Dr. Marburger said the section was dropped because more voluminous reports on climate change were in the works.
After a quick review of the White House rebuttal, which was released in the afternoon with no notice, Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell who is chairman of the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the group would take a fresh look at all the issues.
"It's possible there are things we got wrong," Dr. Gottfried said. "We're not infallible, like the Vatican or the White House. But I don't think there's any reason to think we got the big picture wrong. In fact, our case is stronger now than when we produced that report."
He did not back down from the group's contention that science was more abused by the current administration than by its predecessors.
"I think the average age of those who signed the letter is well over 60," Dr. Gottfried said. "We've seen many an administration come and go, and many have served in those administrations. When we say that this pattern is, in extent, unprecedented we mean that."
- Jan 18, 2001
- 14,465
- 1
- 0
Galt has a better educational background than most of the posters on this board; learn a little bit more before make presumptions.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 20K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 12K
-
Discussion Speculation: Zen 4 (EPYC 4 "Genoa", Ryzen 7000, etc.)- Started by Vattila
- Replies: 13K
-
Facebook
Twitter