Bush Misuses Science, Report Says
- Thread starter Czar
- Start date
Bush wouldn't know what science is if it hit him in the face.
As with intelligence, to him, science is whatever supports his political decision at the moment.
As with intelligence, to him, science is whatever supports his political decision at the moment.
CaptnKirk
Lifer
- Jul 25, 2002
- 10,053
- 0
- 71
New York Times Editorial
Simular report on Administrations stance
Since we're stuck in Iraq indefinitely, we may as well try to learn something. But I suspect that our current leaders won't be receptive to the most important lesson of the land where cities and writing were invented: that manmade environmental damage can destroy a civilization.
When archaeologists excavated the cities of ancient Mesopotamia, they were amazed not just by what they found but by where they found it: in the middle of an unpopulated desert. In "Ur of the Chaldees," Leonard Woolley asked: "Why, if Ur was an empire's capital, if Sumer was once a vast granary, has the population dwindled to nothing, the very soil lost its virtue?"
The answer ? the reason "the very soil lost its virtue" ? is that heavy irrigation in a hot, dry climate leads to a gradual accumulation of salt in the soil. Rising salinity first forced the Sumerians to switch from wheat to barley, which can tolerate more salt; by about 1800 B.C. even barley could no longer be grown in southern Iraq, and Sumerian civilization collapsed. Later "salinity crises" took place further north. In the 19th century, when Europeans began to visit Iraq, it probably had a population less than a tenth the size of the one in the age of Gilgamesh.
Modern civilization's impact on the environment is, of course, far greater than anything the ancients could manage. We can do more damage in a decade than our ancestors could inflict in centuries. Salinization remains a big problem in today's world, but it is overshadowed by even more serious environmental threats. Moreover, in the past environmental crises were local: agriculture might collapse in Sumer, but in Egypt, where the annual flooding of the Nile replenished the soil, civilization went on. Today, problems like the thinning of the ozone layer and the accumulation of greenhouse gases affect the planet as a whole.
On the other hand, today we have the ability to understand environmental threats, and act to contain them. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1989, shows how science and policy can work hand in hand. Research showed that certain chemicals were destroying the ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet radiation, so governments agreed to ban the use of those chemicals, and the ban appears to be succeeding.
But would the people now running America have agreed to that protocol? Probably not. In fact, the Bush administration is trying to reinterpret the agreement to avoid phasing out the pesticide methyl bromide. And on other environmental issues ? above all, global warming ? America's ruling party is pursuing a strategy of denial and deception.
Before last year's elections Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, wrote a remarkable memo about how to neutralize public perceptions that the party was anti-environmental. Here's what it said about global warming: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed. There is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And it advised Republicans to play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty.
But as a recent article in Salon reminds us, this appearance of uncertainty is "manufactured." Very few independent experts now dispute that manmade global warming is happening, and represents a serious threat. Almost all the skeptics are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil, coal and auto industries. And before you accuse me of a conspiracy theory, listen to what the other side says. Here's Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma: "Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
The point is that when it comes to evidence of danger from emissions ? as opposed to, say, Iraqi nukes ? the people now running our country won't take yes for an answer.
Meanwhile, news reports say, President Bush will spend much of this month buffing his environmental image. No doubt he'll repeatedly be photographed amid scenes of great natural beauty, uttering stirring words about his commitment to conservation. His handlers hope that the images will protect him from awkward questions about his actual polluter-friendly policies and, most important, his refusal to face up to politically inconvenient environmental dangers.
So here's the question: will we avoid the fate of past civilizations that destroyed their environments, and hence themselves? And the answer is: not if Mr. Bush can help it.
Simular report on Administrations stance
Since we're stuck in Iraq indefinitely, we may as well try to learn something. But I suspect that our current leaders won't be receptive to the most important lesson of the land where cities and writing were invented: that manmade environmental damage can destroy a civilization.
When archaeologists excavated the cities of ancient Mesopotamia, they were amazed not just by what they found but by where they found it: in the middle of an unpopulated desert. In "Ur of the Chaldees," Leonard Woolley asked: "Why, if Ur was an empire's capital, if Sumer was once a vast granary, has the population dwindled to nothing, the very soil lost its virtue?"
The answer ? the reason "the very soil lost its virtue" ? is that heavy irrigation in a hot, dry climate leads to a gradual accumulation of salt in the soil. Rising salinity first forced the Sumerians to switch from wheat to barley, which can tolerate more salt; by about 1800 B.C. even barley could no longer be grown in southern Iraq, and Sumerian civilization collapsed. Later "salinity crises" took place further north. In the 19th century, when Europeans began to visit Iraq, it probably had a population less than a tenth the size of the one in the age of Gilgamesh.
Modern civilization's impact on the environment is, of course, far greater than anything the ancients could manage. We can do more damage in a decade than our ancestors could inflict in centuries. Salinization remains a big problem in today's world, but it is overshadowed by even more serious environmental threats. Moreover, in the past environmental crises were local: agriculture might collapse in Sumer, but in Egypt, where the annual flooding of the Nile replenished the soil, civilization went on. Today, problems like the thinning of the ozone layer and the accumulation of greenhouse gases affect the planet as a whole.
On the other hand, today we have the ability to understand environmental threats, and act to contain them. The Montreal Protocol, signed in 1989, shows how science and policy can work hand in hand. Research showed that certain chemicals were destroying the ozone layer, which protects us from ultraviolet radiation, so governments agreed to ban the use of those chemicals, and the ban appears to be succeeding.
But would the people now running America have agreed to that protocol? Probably not. In fact, the Bush administration is trying to reinterpret the agreement to avoid phasing out the pesticide methyl bromide. And on other environmental issues ? above all, global warming ? America's ruling party is pursuing a strategy of denial and deception.
Before last year's elections Frank Luntz, the Republican pollster, wrote a remarkable memo about how to neutralize public perceptions that the party was anti-environmental. Here's what it said about global warming: "The scientific debate is closing [against us] but is not yet closed. There is still an opportunity to challenge the science." And it advised Republicans to play up the appearance of scientific uncertainty.
But as a recent article in Salon reminds us, this appearance of uncertainty is "manufactured." Very few independent experts now dispute that manmade global warming is happening, and represents a serious threat. Almost all the skeptics are directly or indirectly on the payroll of the oil, coal and auto industries. And before you accuse me of a conspiracy theory, listen to what the other side says. Here's Senator James Inhofe of Oklahoma: "Could it be that manmade global warming is the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people? It sure sounds like it."
The point is that when it comes to evidence of danger from emissions ? as opposed to, say, Iraqi nukes ? the people now running our country won't take yes for an answer.
Meanwhile, news reports say, President Bush will spend much of this month buffing his environmental image. No doubt he'll repeatedly be photographed amid scenes of great natural beauty, uttering stirring words about his commitment to conservation. His handlers hope that the images will protect him from awkward questions about his actual polluter-friendly policies and, most important, his refusal to face up to politically inconvenient environmental dangers.
So here's the question: will we avoid the fate of past civilizations that destroyed their environments, and hence themselves? And the answer is: not if Mr. Bush can help it.
Among the purported abuses documented in the report:
? "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
Everybody knows abstinence only is better than sex, science be damned. Read your Bible.
? In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.
Everybody knows that environmentalism gets in the way of business, science be damned.
? The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.
Everybody knows that right to lifers are a big source of campaign contributions and committed voters to the Republican party, science be double damned.
? The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.
Truth just confuses people and makes them question. Faith is the means by which we believe what we would ordinarily call ridiculous.
? Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials. For example, his appointee to a presidential AIDS advisory committee, marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."
All people need to believe what they want to believe over what the evidence shows is an 'expert' who thinks like them. Then they can sleep knowing other brighter brains will do their rationalizing for them.
--------------
This is how we are. This is why we will go extinct. Only you can give children a future. Only you will be the reason they are never born.
To be too ashamed to see how you are is to doom yourself to extinction.
? "Performance measures" used to determine the effectiveness of federally funded "abstinence only" sex education programs were altered by the administration in ways that made it easier to say the programs were effective. And information about how to use a condom -- along with scientific data showing that sex education does not lead to earlier or increased sexual activity in young people -- was removed from a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention Web site.
Everybody knows abstinence only is better than sex, science be damned. Read your Bible.
? In testimony before Congress, Interior Secretary Gale A. Norton omitted -- and in at least one case misstated -- federal scientists' findings that Arctic oil drilling could harm wildlife.
Everybody knows that environmentalism gets in the way of business, science be damned.
? The administration altered a National Cancer Institute Web site in a way that wrongly implied there was good evidence linking abortions to breast cancer.
Everybody knows that right to lifers are a big source of campaign contributions and committed voters to the Republican party, science be double damned.
? The Education Department circulated a memo instructing employees to remove materials from the department's Web site not "consistent with the Administration's philosophy," prompting complaints about censorship from national educational organizations.
Truth just confuses people and makes them question. Faith is the means by which we believe what we would ordinarily call ridiculous.
? Bush has appointed to key scientific advisory committees numerous people with political, rather than scientific, credentials. For example, his appointee to a presidential AIDS advisory committee, marketing consultant Jerry Thacker, has described homosexuality as a "deathstyle" and referred to AIDS as the "gay plague."
All people need to believe what they want to believe over what the evidence shows is an 'expert' who thinks like them. Then they can sleep knowing other brighter brains will do their rationalizing for them.
--------------
This is how we are. This is why we will go extinct. Only you can give children a future. Only you will be the reason they are never born.
To be too ashamed to see how you are is to doom yourself to extinction.
This thread's going to die because conservatives are avoiding it like the plague. There's actual cited scientific evidence here.
The administration, and the GOP, has fallen badly on protection of the environment 
I don't know why this can't be a conservative value, the conservation of our beautiful country.
Here's where Arnold steps in!:
?I will fight for the environment. Nothing to worry about.?
I don't know why this can't be a conservative value, the conservation of our beautiful country.Here's where Arnold steps in!:
?I will fight for the environment. Nothing to worry about.?
Originally posted by: alchemize
The administration, and the GOP, has fallen badly on protection of the environment
Here's where Arnold steps in!:
?I will fight for the environment. Nothing to worry about.?
It's not a conservative value because it would be totally inconsistent with their creed - the vow of utter irresponsibility.
Originally posted by: alchemize
The administration, and the GOP, has fallen badly on protection of the environment
I told you why.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, but I don't read your posts that are longer than one line, since you still haven't learned how to manage the quote and preview post buttons after 16366 posts.Originally posted by: alchemize
The administration, and the GOP, has fallen badly on protection of the environment
I told you why.
Yes, but I don't read your posts that are longer than one line, since you still haven't learned how to manage the quote and preview post buttons after 16366 posts.
------------------------------
Actually the reason you don't read my posts longer than a sentence and spin the cause of on me is because I offend your false sense of superiority and make you feel how bad you feel. Your thoughts and ideas are self generated to inflate your sense of self importance and to allie yourself with some higher ism in which you take personal delight and whose glory you hope rubs off on you. I come along, hold up a mirror, you see the gastly truth, get pissed off and try to hurt my feelings by implying you don't read what I say. You figured you were invisible and I couldn't see right into your soul. Hehe, you may be a one eyed Jack dad, but I seen the other side of your face. Don't build your castle on sand if you don't want it to fall down.
And besides, you really hurt my feelings.
------------------------------
Actually the reason you don't read my posts longer than a sentence and spin the cause of on me is because I offend your false sense of superiority and make you feel how bad you feel. Your thoughts and ideas are self generated to inflate your sense of self importance and to allie yourself with some higher ism in which you take personal delight and whose glory you hope rubs off on you. I come along, hold up a mirror, you see the gastly truth, get pissed off and try to hurt my feelings by implying you don't read what I say. You figured you were invisible and I couldn't see right into your soul. Hehe, you may be a one eyed Jack dad, but I seen the other side of your face. Don't build your castle on sand if you don't want it to fall down.
And besides, you really hurt my feelings.
Not a rightwinger, but WTF, I'll play.
And in what 'ways' might this be? In whose qualified opinion? Mickey Mouse?
Note the lack of absolutes. A distinction exists between 'could' and 'will'.
Which 'national educational organizations'? All of them? One? Two?
Who are these 'numerous people', other than Mr. Thacker?
<edit>oops, forgot one:
'good', but not 'conclusive'?
Originally posted by: alchemize
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, but I don't read your posts that are longer than one line, since you still haven't learned how to manage the quote and preview post buttons after 16366 posts.Originally posted by: alchemize
The administration, and the GOP, has fallen badly on protection of the environment
I told you why.
You wouldn't read them anyway. Just admit it.
Please. Righties play that card all the time, and frankly, its pretty tiring. No ethical man of science is every going to paint himself into a corner and put his credibility on the line and give absolutes all the time. All you can do is make observations, and based upon them make the best and most qualified conclusions you possibly can. If you criticize a piece for not being more definitive, you're probably not guillable enough to take any piece for its word, generally speaking, when they claim to be 100% certain either. And as long as there's nota 100% consensus, which there never is, conservatives will always play that card.
What should be taken out of this article is that there is a general pattern that arises here: Bush is an irresponsible goon.
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Yes, but I don't read your posts that are longer than one line, since you still haven't learned how to manage the quote and preview post buttons after 16366 posts.
------------------------------
Actually the reason you don't read my posts longer than a sentence and spin the cause of on me is because I offend your false sense of superiority and make you feel how bad you feel. Your thoughts and ideas are self generated to inflate your sense of self importance and to allie yourself with some higher ism in which you take personal delight and whose glory you hope rubs off on you. I come along, hold up a mirror, you see the gastly truth, get pissed off and try to hurt my feelings by implying you don't read what I say. You figured you were invisible and I couldn't see right into your soul. Hehe, you may be a one eyed Jack dad, but I seen the other side of your face. Don't build your castle on sand if you don't want it to fall down.
And besides, you really hurt my feelings.
No, really moonbeam. Your posts are too hard read, so I don't read them. That simple.
Sorry I hurt your feelings. I didn't mean to. You can tell when I mean to, but I'm sure it doesn't.
mooncancook
Platinum Member
- May 28, 2003
- 2,874
- 50
- 91
Politics is all about lies. damn but our nation can't funtion properly without politics, so live with it, and vote someone else when the time comes.
sandorski
No Lifer
- Oct 10, 1999
- 70,806
- 6,362
- 126
Not to worry. Before extinction occurs, the ones seeking extinction will be violently removed and a truly New World order will be established, so says Biblical Prophecy anyway. Which is a good segway into something that's been brewing in my head for a week or so:
The Cult of the Second Coming
Unlike religious persons(Christians mainly, though some Jews also belong, maybe(dunno for sure) some Muslims) of the past who awaited the return(for Christians, Jews are still awaiting the Arrival) of "Christ", some are more progressive choosing to spur the "coming" by fulfilling prophecy.
The Jewish groups(some Christian ones as well who are aiding the Jewish Settlers) I've heard of seem rather benign, thinking that merely reclaiming traditional Jewish territory will bring the "christ", although considering the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the "benignnes"(sp/word) of it depends on one's perception.
Background
Anyone who has studied Biblical Prophecy knows that many indicators are provided to make the reader aware of the "End Time"(not really the End, just the begining of a new stage in history) and what to expect. Amongst the "signs" are numerous Environmental, Health, Sociological, Military, and Political indicators that occur suddenly and synchronously spurring the people of that time to give their allegiance to a person or org. This person/org will appear as a saviour(Christ) and will perform many amazing things, at first. As time goes on this "Christ" begins to consolidate it's power "out of necessity" eventually becoming a brutal Global Emperor. After a very short period of time(7 years is the commonly held interpretation) the whole house of cards collapses and this "christ" and all it's followers are destroyed, the real "christ" enters the scene and brings humanity back from the brink of extinction.
For most, these various calamities that visit humanity are caused by the edict of "God". However, "God" is merely the Great Unknown, a catch all for the unexplainable. The Truth is that these Prophesies are fulfilled by the hand of humanity, foolishness or intent brings the species to the point of extinction, the "Righteous"(not religious, though some likely are from the religious camps) bring an end to it.
[Blatant conspiratorial conjecture!]
This brings us to the Bush admin.
Does the Bush Admin belong to The Cult of the Second Coming? I dunno, but we clearly(for those who are willing to face it) have all the evidence we need to see that our lifestyle is bringing us to a crisis point. In the Biblical Prophecies we are constantly told that the people of the "End Time" are fully aware of their Sin(wrongdoing), yet choose to continue in it despite the impending doom. So, WTF is the Bush Admin thinking? It seems perfectly content to exacerbate growing problems by not only ignoring them, but by hiding them, hell, it seems they are willing to even accelerate the process by reneging on progress already made! If they are of The Cult, they should know that the Righteous do not cause the fulfillment of prophecy, they are the Saviours from those who fulfill the prophecies. Not a subtle difference.
[/blatant conspiratorial conjecture]
Hard to imagine a political group using science to back its claims. There is bad science and then there is good science that does not agree with other good science. I wonder which case is being complained about more often?
Actually this administration fully endorsed "no science . . . just politics". It was well into 2002 before Bush appointed a science advisor. The only notable instance of this administration using good science was the arsenic issue. Best science did not necessarily support the approved new regs . . . so Bush dutifully rolled them back . . . and then rolled over after the granolas went bezerk.
The stem cell decision was pure BS . . . science ignored.
Best evidence shows abstinence works . . . and so do condoms.
Marginal and immediate changes in CAFE would dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . instead Bush crusades to drill ANWR, CA coast, TX coast, LA coast, MS coast, and FL . . . oh nevermind . . . for some reason he changed his mind about FL.
The stem cell decision was pure BS . . . science ignored.
Best evidence shows abstinence works . . . and so do condoms.
Marginal and immediate changes in CAFE would dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . instead Bush crusades to drill ANWR, CA coast, TX coast, LA coast, MS coast, and FL . . . oh nevermind . . . for some reason he changed his mind about FL.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
Actually this administration fully endorsed "no science . . . just politics". It was well into 2002 before Bush appointed a science advisor. The only notable instance of this administration using good science was the arsenic issue. Best science did not necessarily support the approved new regs . . . so Bush dutifully rolled them back . . . and then rolled over after the granolas went bezerk.
The stem cell decision was pure BS . . . science ignored.
Best evidence shows abstinence works . . . and so do condoms.
Marginal and immediate changes in CAFE would dramatically reduce our dependence on foreign oil . . . instead Bush crusades to drill ANWR, CA coast, TX coast, LA coast, MS coast, and FL . . . oh nevermind . . . for some reason he changed his mind about FL.
Arsenic went under study, it was never rolled back. Only delayed for further study.
Meanwhile people complain that we depend on foreign oil too much, but drilling in the US seems to be prohibited. I have no doubt those desires for no local drilling will fall as the price of natural gas continues to skyrocket because we are using that to make electricity. Because of gas pricing going higher, we are burning more coal now.
And bush has proposed a marginal and immediate cafe standard increase(how increased mpg does not equate to decreased fuel consumption)
Also you probably missed in the news today
Sorry no link, ripped from anothe news site
It appears this admin is enforcing current clean air regulations.
The biggest misuse of science was when the lamb skin condom Bush Sr. was using broke and gave us all a little monkey named W.
all this is partisan warfare. What else is new? Besides, the environment is as healthy as ever. Instead of listening to tree-huggers tying themselves to wild oaks, or environmental terrorists blowing up legitimate businesses, people need to sit back and read real data on how the global environment is doing. You'll be pleasantly surprised.
Furthermore, instead of worring about the environment and AIDS, bush should focus more on balancing the budget. I don't want to have to pay for future generations' medical bills and/or social security.
Furthermore, instead of worring about the environment and AIDS, bush should focus more on balancing the budget. I don't want to have to pay for future generations' medical bills and/or social security.
Yeah, well maybe you and all the other warmongerers should have thought about that before supporting Bush on his little adventure in I-raq.
the expected returns on our "little adventure" are extremely high. Too bad you can't see all the strategic, economic and political advantages that should come our way for the next half-century beyond your partisan bias. You may not have liked the war, but I bet you won't protest at lower gas prices and greater stability.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter