Scientists including 20 Nobel Laureates Accuse White House of Distorting Facts for Policy Goals

[myusername]

So how long before the purges and the burning?

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: myusername
So how long before the purges and the burning?

At this rate? Not too long.

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.

So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.

No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.

Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.

So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.

No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.

Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.

And which presidents have supported and allowed Social Security to become the behemoth it has? Which recent president proposed a prescription drug plan for seniors?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?

CkG

 

[burnedout]

Heard this report today on NPR. Yeah, it seems ate up.

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?

CkG

Are you a nobel laureate, CkG?

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?

CkG

Are you a nobel laureate, CkG?

And that would be important why? This isn't about me - it's about some people whining about not being taken seriously enough(according to them).

CkG

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.

So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.

No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.

Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.

And which presidents have supported and allowed Social Security to become the behemoth it has? Which recent president proposed a prescription drug plan for seniors?

I'm not a huge fan of Bush and I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not friends of the younger generation middle class, on the other hand liberals aren't anyone's friend even though some people may think so. Young people are going to pay in SPADES for all this, unless there is a change.

 

[Orsorum]

At least when I read the article, it mentioned censoring scientific reports and "stacking committees with unqualified political employees". Why is that whining?

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I'm not a huge fan of Bush and I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not friends of the younger generation middle class, on the other hand liberals aren't anyone's friend even though some people may think so. Young people are going to pay in SPADES for all this, unless there is a change.

Of course we will. I have already accepted the fact that I will be providing for my own retirement, and that I will probably have to work well into my 70s to do so. Tough sh!t, eh? It is my generation and my children that will be paying for this mess, and I would like for at least one admiinistration to have the balls to deal with it, not just ignore it like it will disappear. So far I've been disappointed by both conservatives and liberals.

Anyone who allows their thinking to be distorted only by ideological or political lines is a tool.. There are a few people I dismiss out of hand, because they're both unqualified and vitriolic, and have been shown to use misleading and outright false statements in their writings - Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, to name a few.

Show me why you disagree with a statement, and I may disagree with you, but I will respect your decision. Tell me you dismiss it immediately because the person making the statement is a liberal or conservative, and I'll call you a fool and ignore you.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
Awww - so a bunch of scientists didn't think their stuff was looked at seriously enough by the gov't. And?
Is there some "hidden meaning" behind this?

CkG

Are you a nobel laureate, CkG?

And that would be important why? This isn't about me - it's about some people whining about not being taken seriously enough(according to them).

CkG

This is about the Administration making sure the "science" agreed with principles.

There was a panel investigation lead levels and the correlation with neurological damage in children. It was pretty clear that the allow limits were too high. The administration suddenly rotated out members and replaced them with people in the lead industry. Well that killed the science. These folks were ranting that the investigation was unfair, but they did not understand what they were criticizing. They just knew they didnt want new standards. They werent scientists.

That has nothing to do with being taken seriously enough.

This administration has taken an unheard of step of tampering with the research and results to get the desired result.

 

[Witling]

Yeah, CAD, there isn't a "hidden meaning" behind this but it does mean the rules are changing. Rather than leave what had been thought to be scientific decisions to people with some knowledge, we're making them based on politics and stacking the deck to get the "correct" data. That's a societal change worth noting. CAD, I didn't have any real problem with the Nixon administration or the Reagan administration. Bush I was OK too. This crowd wants to effect a basic change in our society and I'm not willing to go along with what they want. Take one example, The Patriot Act.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

 

[Dissipate]

Originally posted by: Orsorum

Originally posted by: Dissipate

I'm not a huge fan of Bush and I will be the first to admit that Republicans are not friends of the younger generation middle class, on the other hand liberals aren't anyone's friend even though some people may think so. Young people are going to pay in SPADES for all this, unless there is a change.

Of course we will. I have already accepted the fact that I will be providing for my own retirement, and that I will probably have to work well into my 70s to do so. Tough sh!t, eh? It is my generation and my children that will be paying for this mess, and I would like for at least one admiinistration to have the balls to deal with it, not just ignore it like it will disappear. So far I've been disappointed by both conservatives and liberals.

Anyone who allows their thinking to be distorted only by ideological or political lines is a tool.. There are a few people I dismiss out of hand, because they're both unqualified and vitriolic, and have been shown to use misleading and outright false statements in their writings - Ann Coulter and Michael Moore, to name a few.

Show me why you disagree with a statement, and I may disagree with you, but I will respect your decision. Tell me you dismiss it immediately because the person making the statement is a liberal or conservative, and I'll call you a fool and ignore you.

Well I happen to disagree with liberals on a lot more issues. Gun control, welfare, taxes just to name a few. I won't dismiss a liberal's statement outright, if they say the sky is blue I won't say otherwise but there is a very small chance I will vote for any liberal.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

 

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

... CkG, seriously, do you have any actual response to the valid questions brought by myself and WinstonSmith? It's not anyone's (well, at least mine) intention to "bash" Bush, it's to raise issues with his policies or practices that are troublesome. If there is a Democratic politician who raises a similar outcry I will consider his actions in the same light. Partisan politics (should) have little to do with this discussion.

 

[HardWarrior]

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate

Originally posted by: HardWarrior

Originally posted by: Dissipate
Scientists and professors are mostly liberals so go figure.

So, simply applying the term "liberal" to an individual invalidates anything they might say? If you REALLY think this is true you're a very scary person.

No, it doesn't invalidate anything they might say, but it means that they have collectivist ideals which I strongly disagree with.

Collectivist? That's some REALLY thick paint you're slapping on there, Dis. Besides a few braindead dupes in the general population, there really aren't that many true "collectivists" in our society, are there? On the other hand we have flag-waving jingoists by the untold MILLIONS.

col·lec·tiv·ism ( P ) Pronunciation Key (k-lkt-vzm)
n.

The principles or system of ownership and control of the means of production and distribution by the people collectively, usually under the supervision of a government.

Forty percent of government outlays go to social security and income security. Income security is basically welfare for "poor" people, while social security is welfare for old people. This fact alone reveals that collectivism is very alive and well in this country.

Just because a person is willing to accept a freebee doesn't make them a collectivist. Nor does taking steps to make sure that a safety net exists for those who are TRULY in need. That these programs have grow to include people who should simply get their asses up and find jobs in no way invalidates their existence. Cut the fat? For sure, but reserve a place at the table for those in this country who can't do for themselves.

 

[norcalhiker]

This is deeply troubling but not unexpected. Bush is horrible. Clear and simple. "Sound science", "fuzy math", ...

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names

The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.

But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!

CkG

 

[BaliBabyDoc]

IIRC, the Union of Concerned Scientists is overwelmingly biochemophysical science . . . and many likely hold faculty positions. I have a unique perspective since I still huddle in the Ivory Tower working under two elite scientists (one bench the other clinical . . . but the bench scientist has his own pharm company). The tremendous expansion in knowledge/technology in the US has been fueled primarily by 1) huge public subsidy, 2) unbridled influx of foreign talent, and 3) hopes and dreams of making a buck . . . or a billion.

Bush policy is already being felt with regards to #1 and #2. And there's very little doubt that research funds will slow to a trickle as America's host of unfunded liabilities and global hegemony expenses come home to roost. When the time comes we will make draconian cuts in some forms of science/research as we "prioritize". Unfortunately, Bushies started "prioritizing" before the ink was dry on the first Presidential election decided by the US Supreme Court.

Any science related to the environment needed to be repeated . . . or better yet "re-evaluated". Regulations based on "best available" science was shelved while Bushies de-emphasized if not wholly de-funding ongoing and future research. It's a convenient ruse when you say the science doesn't support intervention . . . while essentially blocking research that would provide better/more data.

I don't have the numbers at the moment but the average expense of a child with mental retardation is over $500K up to age 18 . . . and they aren't necessarily cheaper after that point. Good biochemists, neuroscientists, and economists would likely come to the conclusion that MOST means of preventing excess lead exposure are quite cost effective. But if you only query (and quote) scientists that work for industry . . . it's unlikely they even know (or care) what the true costs may be. Accordingly, "best available science" in this administration is a euphemism for "plausible deniability secondary to profound ignorance and/or willful duplicity."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names

The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.

But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!

CkG

Let me try this once more.

Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. All the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.

The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.

Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.

This is the same thing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names

The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.

But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!

CkG

Let me try this once more.

Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.

The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.

Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.

This is the same thing.

No, it's not. Your scenario is about a common perspective (finding guilt) whereas this is about different things. One is data and one is policy. A better analogy would be to say that half decided on the sentence while the other half decided guilt.

But anyway - like I've said. You win. Bush is teh eval!!1! ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!

CkG

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names

The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.

But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!

CkG

Let me try this once more.

Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.

The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.

Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.

This is the same thing.

No, it's not. Your scenario is about a common perspective (finding guilt) whereas this is about different things. One is data and one is policy. A better analogy would be to say that half decided on the sentence while the other half decided guilt.

But anyway - like I've said. You win. Bush is teh eval!!1! ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!

CkG

So is it better to base policy on data, or make the data fit the policy?

BTW, if I really wanted to get to teh eval stuff, I could extend this further. I am not because this is a topic of concern. If you want to play the EVAL game, then I will later when I am in the mood. For now I would rather stick to the issue at hand. Your call though

 

[CADsortaGUY]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CADkindaGUY
OK OK OK - I give, you win.

Bush is teh EVAL!!1!!1

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!!



CkG

Dude, ya got to realize that sometimes ANY administration does stupid or bad things that are just that. If you support that particular president, I think it would be best to acknowlege the shortcomings and perhaps fire off a friendly email. Sure the opposition is going to beat on him but who cares? We can think whatever we want, but you could expend the same energy to kick your guy back in line

Believe me - I've been to the post office to send certified letters more often than I care to admit I use the avenues provided to let my opinion be know to those who supposedly represent me. Some of the nastiest have gone to those with an (R) behind their names

The scientists can say what they want but that doesn't mean they are right. Their perception is one of data - not policy. The gov't isn't for science -they are for policy and they(scientist) are whining about it. Sometimes the squeaky wheel gets looked at and fixed and other times it's just road noise.

But anyway - ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!! HE IS TEH EVAL!!!1!

CkG

Let me try this once more.

Let's say that Clinton was under investigation by a grand jury. Half the people there were jurists familiar with the principles of law regarding the alleged violation. Now the jury is about to pronounce it's verdict, but half the members are taken out by Clinton and replaced by cronies who owe him favors, and do not even understand the charges against Clinton. They DO understand that they can benefit by deciding in favor of Clinton, and sabotage things.

The half of the remaining jurors complain that the verdict was rigged.

Are they whiners? Perhaps, but they have damn good cause.

This is the same thing.

No, it's not. Your scenario is about a common perspective (finding guilt) whereas this is about different things. One is data and one is policy. A better analogy would be to say that half decided on the sentence while the other half decided guilt.

But anyway - like I've said. You win. Bush is teh eval!!1! ANYONE BUT BUSH!!!

CkG

So is it better to base policy on data, or make the data fit the policy?

Depends on what that data is.

Can a person be guitly and still walk out of the courtroom without cuffs on? Just because these scientists say the Admin didn't heed the data doesn't mean that their policy was without data. The scientists don't create policy - the gov't does.

Take for example. There isn't good science behind a 65 mph speed limit saving more lives compared to 70 or 75mph(on interstates) yet our gov't still sets it at 65 in order for states to get highway money. Is that right? The data doesn't directly back up the policy but yet there is policy.

ANYONE BUT BUSH!!! - HE IS TEH EVAL!!@!!

CkG