Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions
rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.
Novel theory.
Can you tell it's an election year?
Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.
Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Typical. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming some country has Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext to start a war.
Oops. Too late.
...I just don't see the Union of Concerned Scientists to be any less biased. Both camps see science through the lens of their own special interests.
"We have to find a way to reach out to them and try to come to an understanding"
Being scientists the touchy-feely "reach out" approach won't work. They'll have to come up with solid data to refute these claims.
Money is a double edged sword: it's necessary for science & research but it can warp the results to be more business friendly.. and if the results are skewed then it's not science, it's bullshit.
disclaimer: I work in the biomedical research industry but not in the U.S.
Trolling is a art,
If you were the manufacturer of lead poisoning tests and such, you'd definitely want your lobby position to revolve around "Lead is gonna poison us all!1!! OMG!" Sometimes it's good to turn down special interests, even if they are claiming they are doing it for your good.
Which has nothing to do with the accusations the scientists are making. I wonder what sort of mindset the administration has when its science advisor can't even read the letter he's responding to.
Good job, shrub.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
There are a lot more voting bible-belters than there are scientists.
This administration has made it abundantly clear that they are only concerned with getting reelected. To hell with anything that stands in their way and alienates their voting base.
The US Presidency, much like US Corporations, is afflicted with serious shortsightedness.
I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office. And perhaps they'd think about doing things for the good of the nation rather than themselves.
-- You see, there would be these conclusions that you could jump to
Why are there 20 Nobel prize winners who can refute our findings, while we have an oaf as our head science guy?
Anything in parenthesis may (not) be ignored.
Nothing to see here, move along...
K
On their website is also a form to "sign" the statement yourself if you have an advanced degree in a scientific or technical field or are a graduate student pursuing one. Please read the report, though, before signing on.
Fark had the best headline for this:
"The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses science. The administration points out that the Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists disagrees"
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
Yale MBA's, and their dad's friends.
Duh!
Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.
Yes it's biased. Biased towards scientific truth instead of political motives (though by creating the document in the frist place, the scientists are expressing some political motives).
And yes he should be troubled. Being a science adviser and having 20 highly acclaimed scientists say you are wrong makes you look like bad.
that being said, time to go RTFA and see where i'm wrong.
It's not that the facts are sometimes not distorted, it's that the truth isn't sometimes wrong and many times it isn't even incorrect.
funding? what are your sources? i've noticed that the cry of the pro-dubyas is that any disagreement with the dubya's policies must in fact be from liberal sources. there are many other non-liberal folks (such as libertarians) who disagree with dubya's policies. and, of course, there are apolitical groups who disagree as well. i know it's convenient to put these things in their box so you feel justified in ignoring them. but...let's call this rationalization a severe deficiency in logical thinking.
He does more then distort the facts, he completly changes them for what the big coperations want. Take global warming and climate change, he completly refuses to even say they are real! He does this becuase industries that polute want him too, anything he does is for that reason or something else.
who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering.
They are luddites plain and simple.
They came out against the a health study a couple of weeks ago. The study said that americans or too fat and should eat less fat and more veggies. Real contravercial stuff..
Before the panel could act, Secretary of Health and Human Services Tommy Thompson rejected the recommendation and replaced two members of the panel with individuals tied to the lead industry, Knobloch said.
There's a lead industry?
And it has influence in washington?
You are doubleplus ready for Ingsoc.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
> Bush's science adviser, John Marburger,
Marburger? Sounds like some kind of Ebolan to me....
Wow, they sound formidable. Undoubtedly, they will be able to sway the administration, who only has a few trillion dollars of industry capital supporting the status quo. Good thing they are concerned, not just mildly interested;)
This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.
Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right?
Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?
The Union of Concerned Scientists
Oh c'mon, is that the best they could do? How about something totally original like... 'The League of Extraordinary Scientists' or the 'Fellowship of the Scientists'. That kind of thing!
It's a judgement by a group of scientists who feel that the current administration is screwing with things for their own gain.
Oh wait that would make the Bush Administration bias too, whatever shall we do?
Welcome to politics.
No sig for you!!
I am tired of the current administration's tactic of attacking legitimate concerns with "they're political!".
Here's a question for you. What did the five fingers say to the face? Answer: SLAP! I'm Rick James, Bitch!
Actually, if you remember the tests that were done a few years ago on the new SDI missiles were largely faked. Turns out the engineers just strapped a GPS locator onto the missile, and a GPS beacon onto the target. The funny thing is that it still only hit 1 or 2 out of the 3 missiles. Maybe it will eventually work, maybe it won't. But it sure as hell won't protect a damn thing in this country against a nukular missile attack for at least a decade if not a century.
Why the hell do other people find themselves in positions of authority? If scientists would put their money where their mouth is, and take some responsibility instad of pointing fingers and doing the I-told-you-so dance, they could be the ones making the policy. But NO. They DON'T bother to get successful. They are happy to work for someone else. And when things don't go their way? Finger pointing and I-told-you-so.
If you don't like who is in authority, take them OUT. At the point of a gun if necessary. Reform not worth sacrificing your own life? Then use the democratic process instead.
So, what you're telling me is that Bush is stupid as an orc*, a troll who's pro-business, and cares only about his reelection prospects... What else is new?
*apologies to the Orcish-Americans out there, I know that's a grave insult.
What?!? SDI now works!?! When did that happen???
...
Boy, you leave slashdot for a minute to get a little work done and jeesh
Oh, and successful rigged tests!
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Dude
Are you serious? You really think Star Wars works? What are the "successful tests" you refer to - the ones where the missile had an attached radio beacon?
Jeesh, my guess is you are either not a scientist, or if so, work on an SDI related project.
Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".
I think, therefore I thought.
I'm amazed in seeing how far John Marburger has gone. I first knew him when he was the president of SUNY at Stony Brook when I was a student. He then went to Brookhaven National Labs and now he's the President's Science Advisor. I'll be real interested in how this whole event carries out. Personally I found Marburger to be a really upfront and a likeable person. I hope these high level politcs hasn't changed him.
If all this should have a reason, we would be the last to know.
*cough*freevibe.com*cough*
"It is seldom that liberty of any kind is lost all at once." -David Hume
They had pretty much this is France and changed it. It was 8 years for President, now down to 6 I believe.
The problem is first time around. What if the person is totally inept? You never really know. Think Carter for 10 years and Shudder the Current moron.
Help fight continental drift.
Because if the Republicans had funded it, the conclusions would have been rewritten and the Nobel laureates on the panel replaced by industry lobbyists and political hacks.
No kidding. A quick perusal of their site comes up with articles on global warming, how to be an activist, the evils of SUVs, and other non-sense. Little wonder such a group would condemn the policies of the current administration.
For instance, this blurb is on their front page: "Misplaced Priorities in the 2005 Budget. President Bush's budget request for 2005 increases funding for the dysfunctional missile defense system while shortchanging programs that could ensure a future of cleaner energy and automobiles."
"Dysfunctional"? Funny, seems every test that's been conducted has shown better results than the previous one. I'm not sure how something designed to safeguard the US from attack by, oh, say, North Korea (who has persued nuclear weapons and missiles with range to California in the past), and which, while not perfect, is getting better, can be described as "dysfunctional." You'd think a bunch of Nobel laureates would understand the concept of "incremental improvement."
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Here's one on wired. I saw that one before the headline here. As for who to believe, I'm inclined to go with twenty Nobel laureates and 40 other scientists over one Whitehouse full of politicians. No matter what your opinion on politics, don't forget to get out and vote this year and let them know how you feel about this and other issues.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Pi has been redefined as 3, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.
e has been redefined as 2, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.
Air purity regulations have been relaxed so reduced visibility will help obscur tall buildings from planes piloted by terrorists.
Water purity regulations have been relaxed so terrorists drinking it may go to their martyrdom sooner, without killing patriotic americans.
The etters '','' nd '' hve been strken from the lphbet to hnder terrorst communctons.
Your Presdent thnks you for dong your prt to defet the enmes of merc nd protect freedom!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Umm... in 1980s terms they were absolutely 100% correct. Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment. The UCS said blocking 1000ish missiles at the same time would be prohibitively expensive (maybe quadrillions of dollars) if not impossible.
20 years later, we've got preliminary testing of anti-missiles that might be able to knock out at most a dozen incoming warheads, in a narrow region of airspace. Not nearly the same thing.
I am glad we are now protected by SDI; those Martians would be shooting down landers (aircraft) here if not for it.
Those silly scientists don't really know anything. We all realize Bush invented antibiotics, cell phones, nanotechnology, etc.
Finding a few examples of supposed censorship and distortions means Bush = Evil? .
The fact that this story's other references are all noted liberal newspapers and opponents of the Bush Adminstration shows what a leftist propaganda site Slashdot is.
SIG:Slashdot: indymedia for nerds.
After a few successful tests, i'd suggest that they were full of it then, and continue to be full of it now. Talk about a group with an axe to grind. They might as well have called themselves 'Union of Progressive Scientists'. Truth in advertising.
They are on perma-ignore.
They're also the same group that warned everyone of Global Cooling back in the 1970's, and warn everyone of global warming today.
Here's a question - if Dinosaurs once ruled the Earth when it was a tropical paradise, doesn't it make sense that the Earth would return to that temperature?
Chicken Little called, he wants his gimmick back from these guys.
What successfull tests are those?
You mean after spending billions and billions
they can hit something in absolute ideal
conditions? Wow.
Be nice... this administration is just trying to keep its (religious) base happy. Isn't that what they got elected for?
"The Demon Haunted World" by Carl Sagan has some excellent examples of how extreme political interference with science led to major catastrophes. It's definitely worth reading.
I used the modifier "extreme" intentionally. You should always expect a certain amount of political meddling/grandstanding with govt funded science, but outright suppression and heavy distortion is over the line.
And yes, I am posting this AC since my job is a result of federal research money.
We also see the imminent demise of HST. I know the timing is apparently just coincidental, but some speculate that killing off the Shuttle program now has a lot to do with the potential budget pressures imposed by the Mars travel.
I don't mean to disparage the idea of manned travel to Mars. I think it would be as nifty as the next person, and the advances required will no doubt produce ancillary technological benefits that will benefit everyone. However, the current leaning seems to be toward severely damaging existing and planned space astronomy to get there. Not good.
Asking 100 randomly selected scientists to give an analysis of some data will probably get you a good 20 to 30 different conclusions. It should be no suprise that you can find a group that will complain that the conclusion reached in a politically sensitive issue is not their own.
As always, the rule with what michael approves is:
* If it's anti-Bush, it has a chance.
* If it's pro Bush, it's rejected.
Couple that with michael's frequent approvals of articles that grossly exaggerate facts, and I have to concluce that, once again, I can't trust a single shred of that slashdot article.
They (seemingly) manipulate intelligence reports to paint an incredibly grim picture of Iraqi's WMD program in order to justify an attack on a sovereign nation
The view the same job market and economy reports we do, and yet see 250 million new jobs being created this year, and that the economy is doing just fine, thank you.
Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.
Why not circumvent the scientific process if it will appease the American Taliban (read the very left-wing christian fundamentalists, not your every day christian) and keep the $$$ rolling in from big corporations?
The short-sightedness of this administration is staggering. Yes, everyone knows other administrations have been corrupt as well, but Christ! They didnt' have the chutzpah this one does.
They scare me.
Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".
The SDI tests were conducted during the Reagan administration. Most of the "conclusive" evidence of WMD in Iraq was gathered under the Clinton administration. What's your point?
"If those scientists wanna fight, they found it. Bring 'em on! My crack team of scientists from Exxon and Haliburton continue to stand by our "Kinder, Gentler Fossil Fuels" programs, as well as our faith-based intitiative to persuade evil-doers to give up their WMD. We refuse to accept any other scientific theory that reeks of politics or isn't one hundred percent proven - now if you'll excuse me I've got some phone taps to listen in on - people are freaky!" - George W Bush
Take the UK for example. You have the Prime Minister, who doesn't have to be terribly photogenic but does have to be able to get some serious work done. Then, surrounding their role, you have the monarchy. On the one hand, the royals can handle the ribbon-cutting type of ceremonies that in other countries (such as the US) create some of the movie-star requirements of the presidency. On the other hand, they handle the very-long-range planning and provide valuable continuity for the nation as a whole.
The US Senate was supposed to do the same sort of thing, which is why they have longer terms, but when they went from a (slightly like) "house of lords" appointment system to the popular vote system like the Congress had, that idea got dropped. The original theory was that there should be some representative body whose people did have a vested interest in the country itself, not the administration or a particular company.
Of course, that's just a theory based on poor recollections...
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
One of their biggest backers is the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, which regularly donates to many other groups such as Greenpeace, labeled by some as ecoterrorists.
Remember when the union pensions used to fund the mob. This is who they fund now. Makes ya think.
People who bite the hand that feeds them usually lick the boot that kicks them
Is there still an industry specifically for lead production? I would have thought that they would have been bought out by Comcast by now.
SDI did work.
between SDI, our space program, and our nuclear program, we defeated the Russians. Ended 50 years of cold war.
We outspent them (reason 91,423 capitalism is better than communism). Ended up costing a lot less lives than WW3 would have. Plus we got lots of scientific advances in the process.
Mod me down now (-1, Pro-Reagan)
I'm not surprised by the lack of concern in the general population. We've still got school districts that are fighting to keep evolution out of the public schools! I'm afraid too many people's idea of science are shows like "FOX Special - "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?" If we as a society don't understand science, then our leaders will get away with shuffling off pseudo-science, self-serving, political-oriented junk on the country. If anyone wants a good read, Carl Sagan co-wrote this awesome "book about science vs. ignorance. /rant off
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
I am pretty much in favor of science. I am not in favor of mixing science with politics.
There are many other factors that goes into each of the policies than simply saying they are supression. If you are talking about a small town company being forced to close, then you are talking about unseating a lot of jobs.
I look at the 282 million dollar retrofit of a natural gas facility in South Carolina. That money would have paid 12,000 workers the medium income for the county of location for 1 year.
With any type of reporting like this, the human effects must be weighted. Sometimes it is not just a simply fact where politics is involved. You don't stop a person from eating since what they eat will make them fat or have heart disease. You provide solutions that will fix the issues with the least effect.
Also, if the report was IMPORTANT enough to be public, why was it that those that wrote it didn't just post it to freenet? Could it be that their motivations are less than pure?
Why Bush Administration? Why not the simple statement that SOME in the exective branch were not properly checked and balanced by the other branches allowing supression of information that might have effected policy?
suppressing Evolutionary theory.
Politicians distort facts
Is this surprising?
The Bush administration has started to get into a bad habit of saying things it can't back up, when simply telling the truth would have been good enough.
We had a legit reason to invade Iraq, it just wasn't the one the administration was talking about. At the end of the first Gulf War, the peace treaty said that Iraq would not have WMDs, and the UN would get to have uninterfered with inspections to make sure they didn't. Iraq was playing games with the inspectors, so we couldn't be sure that they didn't have any WMDs. That alone is a justification to attack, they had broken the deal that ended the first war.
They were playing the hidden ball trick and making it look like they had WMDs. That was the reason Saddam had to go, because we couldn't take the risk that he just might have the ability to give his WMD program to Al Queda.
But, instead of saying that it was a worst case situation that we should have the ability to prove isn't happening but can't, the Bush administration took it a step foward and said that Iraq actually did have WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had the biggest bluff in history working. Saddam and the people around him sure thought they had WMDs, but the truth turns out to be that his scientists couldn't come up with the goods but were too scared of him to say they faied. Oops...
Had Bush just stuck to what he knew was true, he could have justified the war with a weaker but still good enough justification. But, instead, he over inflated the information, and now he's got a credibility problem that infects nearly everything else he says. He ended up doing a right thing but for the wrong reasons...
Danish Government Committee Exposes Union of Concerned Scientists
Written By: Neil Hrab
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute
_____
Best-selling author Michael Crichton recently observed that environmentalism
is a kind of pseudo-religion. He's right. Environmentalists have their own
holy day (Earth Day, April 22), their saints (Rachel Carson, Jacques
Cousteau), demon (George W. Bush), and Garden of Eden (Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge). They also have their own Grand Inquisitor--the Union of
Concerned Scientists.
The Union's job is to hunt down heretics who desert the true faith. One of
those is a Danish academic named Bjorn Lomborg. The green witch-hunters have
been after him for the past three years.
Skeptic Attacked, Vindicated
Lomborg, a statistician, was once a member of Greenpeace and believer in the
green religion. But he began to doubt its articles of faith as he studied
the facts about the environment. Eventually Lomborg reviewed all the latest
research and compiled his findings in a 540-page book, The Skeptical
Environmentalist, published in 2001.
Before long, the green version of the Inquisition began to hound Lomborg.
Savage reviews of his book appeared in newspapers and journals, claiming the
book was based on a "lie." The Union of Concerned Scientists helped mobilize
some of Lomborg's detractors.
In Denmark, his enemies formally attacked his scholarship. In January 2003,
the oddly named "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty," a creation of
the government-funded Danish Research Agency, sprang into action. Its
verdict: Lomborg was "guilty" of "plagiarization" and "fabricating data."
Lomborg's "optimistic view of the world" made it impossible for scientists
to credit his findings. The greens asserted Lomborg tailored his book's
conclusions to fit his belief that the global environment was in no danger
of collapse. "[Lomborg's] values regularly taint his conclusions," said one
American reviewer, writing at the request of the Union.
But Lomborg has had the last laugh. On December 17, the Danish Ministry of
Science overturned the January ruling. It found the Committee's judgment
"completely void of argumentation."
Calling the Kettle Black
Those who charge that Lomborg's research is clouded by bias would do well to
look at their own history. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a strident
political advocacy group conveniently based in the shade of Harvard at
Cambridge, Massachusetts, typically interprets science to fit its politics.
In the 1980s it claimed President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) would never work. A Union spokesman said it would cost
taxpayers $1 trillion to put 2,400 armed satellites in orbit to shield the
U.S. against a Soviet missile attack. Persistent criticism finally forced
the group to revise its figures downward--to 800 satellites, then 300, and
finally 162.
In 1984 the Union dropped all pretense to science or neutrality. Popular
science writer Carl Sagan organized a 15-city tour by UCS members to bolster
Democratic Presidential nominee Walter Mondale, an opponent of "Star Wars,"
in his unsuccessful campaign against Reagan. In 1988, the Union and other
"peace" groups opposed research on what's now called the "stealth bomber,"
claiming it would make war with the Soviet empire more likely. The Union
lost that fight, too.
In 1992 the Union issued a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." This
petition is no different from the jeremiads of Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown,
and other members of the environmental clerisy. None dare quarrel with their
dark vision of the future. The Warning speaks of "vast human misery" and a
planet left "irretrievably mutilated." Mankind "may so alter the living
world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know
Any excuse for Bush bashing is always allowed here. Reactionary liberals only. Intelligent discussion is not wanted.
Professional Politicians are not the solution, they ARE the problem.
Buying scientists off is expensive. ;-)
Quack, quack.
Because no one without a degree can possibly understand anything as important as science.
And they certainly can't be trusted to make their own decisions.
THE TESTS WERE FAKED! Jesus, doesn't anyone read the fucking news anymore?!
A Department of the Interior scientific advisory panel of sheep industry experts will be announcing their findings later today that sheep bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.
...your message would be more convincing if you used proper spelling.
...who thinks creationism is a valid science rather than a religious doctrine.
You're dealing with a administration...
They are luddites plain and simple.
They came out against a health study a couple of weeks ago. The study said that americans are too fat and should eat less fat and more veggies. Real controversial stuff..
Sorry if the subject sounds like a flame, but it's true. Bush got into Harvard and Yale through connections. He was exposed to people infinitely smarter than him, and this seems to have vastly shaken his self confidence. This happens to a lot of us, but we grow out of it. Bush hasn't. All professors or researchers are now 'elites.' Science is subjective. All that matters is faith.
The scientists signing the letter do not represent the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are an independent group who are merely endorsing the UCS report. Furthermore, they include scientists who are not particularly left-wing, such as H-bomb designer Richard Garwin and physicist Norman Ramsey, both of whom served as advisers to Republican administrations. According to this news item, organizations opposing the Bush administration policy include: the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The opposition isn't coming from the left fringe; it is mainstream.
If I was trying to bait, it would have been much more flame-y than that.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
Does it not occur to you that maybe the SDI test was to test the interceptors ability to adjust course, not its ability to find the target? Do none of you think of that? We're talking about a complex system. You should test all the pieces independently before you put them all together to see if they work. Monkeys.
I find it troubling how much of a disconnect there is in the American public (and beyond) such that political opinion overshadows scientific fact and mathematical logic. Yet another sign our education system is in crisis.
Even sadder is that people generally don't care to understand the difference between 1 million and 1 billion and 1 trillion. It's all just some big number to them, but a few extra zeros really matter!
As always, I blame the news media (present company excluded, of course). They could really help bridge the gaps but they don't. I believe a law should be passed that every number ever stated in the news should be followed by an analogous per capita statstic. Like, $87 Billion more for the War on Iraq? That'll be $300 each per American. Funny.. Isn't that exactly what Bush gave us in the first tax year after he was elected?
Oops. Too much coffee. Back to work..
- Lebofsky
Bias helps to understand why someone takes a view and also what facts/theories/ideas they might be ignoring or not telling you about. It doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. While I have a bias against the Bush administration and their policy of allowing affected business to write their own regulations (e.g. Cheney and the secret meetings over energy policy), those businesses have knowledge that is useful to the process (they know things about their businesses and their process use that others wouldn't know) and should have input into what happens. The UCS has a bias as well, but they are made up of smart people who might also know something. The bias of these groups doesn't negate the validity of their arguments. Ultimately, the facts will out - the biases will explain why the UCS looked into these issues but do not deny the validity (or lack thereof) of their results.
Everything's fine. According to the president himself, we don't have nuclear weapons... we have nukular weapons... a totally different thing.
*whew*
-=sig=-
Add to this that Russia sucessfully tested a balistic missile that can manuver in flight to dodge missile defense sheilds yesterday.
Even if we could make it work, it's practically trivial to defeat it. Plus you'd have to be completely insane to launch a missile at us. We are past the point of conventional warfare. It just doesn't work anymore.
You quickly will see what is the pathetic direction that the Bush Administration is taking on environmental policy:
3 23 21
http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=15
I've seemed to notice that many /.-ers have this opinion of "nothing new". Yes, this is nothing new (especially if you're a skeptic of the Bush administration) but to me this means something big.
The reason is is that much of our bias, one way or another, has come from the media. Yes, much of it can be based on facts, but I think we'd all be lying to ourselves considering the amount of biased media out there. While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.
Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought out or created like special think tank groups out there. So, therefore, this sort of report gives our concerns about the Bush administration, in my opinion, real legitimacy. No longer can people say that our skepticism is the result of "liberal media".
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
2) Bush gets to appoint a conservative Supreme Court.
3) Bush gets the Constitution revised: "As long as the terrorist threat to our great nation and freedom all over the world persists, we cannot risk a leadership change in our homeland that could endanger our efforts to thwart this Evil. It is therefore necessary for us to rule that the presidency of George Walker Bush can be extended indefinitely, without elections, until the war on terror is finally over".
Don't tell me it can't/won't happen.
Ya know the old saying:
"Scientists are like assholes, everyone's got one."
That was how it went, wasn't it ?
Bushy-boy and co. lying? ha! you call that news? their mouths keep moving...
;-).
OT The USA got a lot of support after 11/09 which lost very fast thanks to Bush unilateralism/lies, Now the world(hey at least me) supports US citizens to get a *NEW* president, hopefully a better one, anybody in the world can see what kind of loon is Bush, we don't need those.
Disclaimer no I'm not from USA(and you don't know how much I thank that fact at the moment), I don't intend to tell you what to do, You're free to repeat mistakes. and please don't reply I'm busy
Smokin' & rubying away
Everytime michael gets his turn, he posts propaganda and flamebait stories. Nice use of slashdot... moron. You see, the problem is that LEGITIMATE stories are then pushed off the homepage that much sooner. Go ahead, mod me down for my opinion. Hail ze uberleft.
SCO: 800-726-8649
Verisign: 800-361-8319, 888-642-9675
Diebold: 800-433-VOTE (8683)
"...this administration has in fact been very supportive of science," Marburger said. He noted the administration has doubled the National Institutes of Health budget and increased the National Science Foundation budget."
I guess they were hoping the people that might actually call them out on their distortion of science would look the other way when given a bigger budget?
It doesn't change the fact that bush is wrong and that he does distort scientific evidence. He gutted power plant regs so old plants doing upgrades do not have to purchase new up-to-date scrubbers. He is a moron when it comes to the environment. If there is one thing he should have learned from Reagan's era was that env. regs don't make businesses unprofitable.
> Bush's science adviser, John Marburger...
As in the Marburg virus? :)
/greger
Doesn't anyone know how to read the fucking news critically anymore?!
Dateline of the linked article: July 31, 2001
Dateline of this article: November 21, 2002
This is what I meant by incremental improvements. Yes, some of the first tests were done under "ideal" circumstances. But those were designed to test the feasability of actually hitting a supersonic missile and disabling it, not tracking it, too. As we go along, the technology will mature and we'll be more able to protect not just our homeland, but our allies, too (since they're unwilling to do it themselves).
Now, answer this: the Navy has been able to knock down incoming anti-ship missiles for years now. The technology has gotten to the point where the chance of a missile impacting one of our ships is miniscule. How is that fundamentally different from shooting down an ICBM? Answer: it's not, it's only a question of scale.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
Your[sic] dealing with a administration... who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering.
And here is some incontrovertible proof to support your assertion. Right from whitehouse.org, no less!
There's a lead industry? And it has influence in washington?
... lead. Drive your car to the doctor to get an Xray, the apron they put over you to cover your "radiologically sensitive glands" is made of ... lead. You go home & turn on the TV, which shields
you from radiation from the CRT with, guess what, lead. And so on, and on, and on.
Of course there's a lead industry. You're using a computer, and the components are soldered to the board with...lead. Get up from your desk to go take a drink, and unless your building is less than 5 years old, the pipes are held together with...lead. Get in your car, and the battery works because most of it's weight is
Yes, there's a special interest group for the lead industry. Oddly enough, if they weren't standing up for that industry, we'd have government mandates imposed upon us which have no foundation in reality, like the ill-advised "rip out the asbestos floor tiles" craze in the 90's.
It's a case of a "special interest group" that you're not even aware of, that has a positive effect on your everyday life. Next time you hear someone whining about lobbyists and special interest groups, think for a bit just what the big picture might be.
The Union of Concerned Scientists,
they are like what? The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen?
(As quoted from www.activistcash.com )
Unbiased? "Rigorus" scientific processes? Yea right.
Cruc
I wonder why people immediatly get into their corners and start to discredit the report based on "political" views, instead of calmy discussing the contents.
The whole "lead" issue raised in the report is quite revealing.
I am not through the whole thing, but so far it makes a lot of sense. Seems like good money spent.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
Is it all that hard to realize that so called "scientists" may have agendas as well?
[FromTheMorning]
The notable thing here is that a concerned group of people are DOING something about said distortion, rather than simply waving a jaded hand at the television. That is newsworthy and I'm glad to hear it.
- First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then ???, then profit.
How quaint. People still buy that into that global warming BS. 25 years ago it was the exact oppisite. Go read Newsweek from April 28, 1975. Here is a link to the text:
http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm
which is why we needed to take out a certain nation's regime because it could easily run across a flat planet.
"Look Lois, the two symbols of the Republican Party: an elephant, and a fat white guy who is threatened by change."
Hi all,
Today I am founding "Scientists Who Couldn't Give a Rat's Ass". Membership is $500/year. We will quickly establish close ties with this administration and issue weekly press releases during any subsequent Democratic administration.
-Professor Whoever
Heaven forbid that we should be able to get rid of someone every four years. If it were ten, what are you going to do, deny them reelection for their *next* ten years (when they're too tired to run again?) This idea is so stupid it should start reading the evening news.
You can go to far the other way too, like the non-confidence vote in a parliamentary system which keeps the government almost totally ineffective. (although that's not always a bad idea).
All these corruptions and political BS is going to abuse our scientific and military strength.
It's almost inevitable that history repeats itself. US is on track to crash and burn like the Roman Empire.
What, you mean that "Bush is evil and the scientists are 50% correct"?
Yeah, instead of taking into account the information provided by an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, I'll just go to google and do a little reasearch myself...
(clickety-click)
Hmm, see, according to my extensive search query, they are totally wrong in their assessment.
Bumper sticker I saw yesterday: Which is worse, screwing an intern or screwing the country?
Bush is a lying megalomaniac with a family axe to grind, regardless of whether or not these scientists are right in their assessment. But if I had to make a surface judgement, I think I'll go with the overwhelming odds.
My beliefs do not require that you agree with them.
And this is news?
Calling atheism and agnosticism a religion is like calling bald a hair color.
The difference is that a navy ship does not get attacked by hundreds if not thousands of missles coming in from near-orbital altitudes (thus at very high speeds) that also will break up into multiple targets each not long before they strike. I guess you can say that still is a question of scale, but they are on pretty far opposite ends of that scale then.
You need some sunlight to produce vitamin D; therefore, therefore, sunlight cannot cause cancer.
Sure, whatever you say.
Ummm yea d00d, except that it was Clinton who said Iraq had WMDs.
And since the yahoo link is farked, here is a google link for ya.
And while we are at it, let's look at this timeline of statements by the best Scientists of their time:
0000's : Elements are Earth, Fire, Water, and Air
1300's : Earth is Flat
1800's : Radio waves move thru the "Ether"
1800's : Man will never fly
1900's : Smoking is good for you!
1970's : Global Cooling!!!
2000's : Global Warming!!!
2400's : There will never be a warp drive
Hell, I would be just as accurate as "Experts" if I just flipped a coin...
Note the rating: radical left.
Also, check out:
activist cash for more info.
JunkScience.com said of these guys: "It's more like the Union of Concerned Lawyers."
This guys are FAR from independent.
Wacked agenda science guys do a press release and everyone buys it. The Peace Prize used to have merit. The last several years it doesn't. The only way for that org to get back any self respect would be to award it to the U.S. Military which has provided peace for years in many regions. As for missile defense: Which would you prefer: A wack job like NK sends a missile or two our way toward the left coast and we stop it? Or... it hits and we respond with a full attack wiping out the whole country? Some could make an argument that nuking the left coast would be an improvement, but that might be a bit harsh.
I actually talked to Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland yesterday a few hours after this conference and he was actually talking about this press conference and he mentioned that he thought that politicians in the United States are looking far too shortsided, because of the future economic damages. While he isn't the most politically astute guy I have ever met he does realize that there are long term damages that have economic side-effects that we are already seeing. The possibilty of the the expanded desertification of the Sahara for example could cause starvation for millions in the coming decades. I hope there is some reaction to this report, because Rowland has been part of report to the Bush administration on global climate change at least twice since 2001.
And we're back to "terrorists". I hate to tell you this but spray-painting a car is vandalism, not terrorism. I disagree with their tactics, but in today's society I understand their futility in playing in a system where Bush has $120 Million already in campaign funds and they want what's right.
Follow the money and you'll find the root of all the problems in politics.
Sounds like you are saying people who are better educated will tend to disagree with Busch policies. Quite telling. If you have less education you follow Busch like sheep. If you are educated and have information you know what's wrong with the Busch and you complain about it ( grinding axe ). Hmm. i know which camp i'd rather be in. The one that knows. Of course only the Shadow knows... ( Wait! the shadows are Busch's agent's )
It would come as no surprise to learn that a government whose appointment defies logic, whose economic policy harms the most of its citizens, whose diplomacy alienates most of its genuine allies, whose defense policy makes nuclear proliferation more likely, also distorts science. Why settle for any one item when you can have the set.
okay, i always find these examples humorous. here's why: how did we come to "know" about ionizing radiation, vitamin D, ozone, skin cancer, CFCs, or vulcanology? i'll give you a big hint...science. if you wish to argue about how science is a religion, then please do not use terms related to science (or scientific discovery) as your points of contention.
Because if the Republicans had funded it, the conclusions would have been rewritten and the Nobel laureates on the panel replaced by industry lobbyists and political hacks.
I think we have to accept that no report is ever entirely independent and unbiased....erm...*cough*...Hutton Report......
I'm reminded of the Bush Administrations first reaction to Global Warming...that it didn't exist. When confronted with mounting evidence to the contrary, the reaction from dubya was something to the affect of "What are you worrying about, it'll make winter weather less severe, last fewer months, and create a lot of new beach-front property. Everybody wins!" Now, that's a great scientific mind at work.
http://www.JournalOfTheRandom.com
Here's what they've found:
Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple
They've found that Democrats cause cancer
Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay
JFK posthumously joins Republican Party
(for those with no humor, this was all taken from an episode of The Simpsons. If you're offending in any way, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.)
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
Really. His point was made with the subtlety of a brick tossed through a window, but he's basically right. Flamebait? No. Overley dramatic? Maybe.
Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
So why is it that since the largely global ban on CFCs, the ozone hole has been on the mend at a rate pretty much consistent with the rate that the model for CFC action in the ozone says it should given our new, lower CFC levels?
The basic problem with science is that when it is used to justify *decisions*, those decisions are usually made by persons not directly familiar with the science in question. Therefore in public debate regarding science there is no accountability, because the judges-- the public-- do not have enough knowledge on the subject to determine truth. I could claim here that the chlorine from the oceans is of a different compound structure from those in CFCs and so does not engage in the chemical reaction harmful to the ozone, and no one reading would know if that's true or not, but they'd take my word for it (Note: It may or may not be true incidentally, but it isn't coming from anywhere. I just made it up). Likewise you've claimed there are CFCs in volcanoes, and no one knows if it's true or not, but they'll probably take your word for it. Time Magazine claimed at some point that CFCs cause the ozone hole, and no one knows if it's true or not, but they take their word for it. Your assessment of the problem is right, but what I am describing here is what allows the problem you describe to occur.
Hello? This guy is trolling! Why the hell is he at (5, Insightful)?
The current administration distorts science (and just about everything else) on a regular basis. The examples are so numerous, its actually hard to find something that the administration has NOT substantially distorted.
In a conference call yesterday, a comparison was made with the current Bush administration to Nixon's and the elder Bush's administrations. These other conservative administrations--even Nixon's--simply didn't engage in such systematic misrepresentations. No other administration has.
Bush Jr. is in a league of his own. He was a miserable student (low C averages, and this ivy-league man couldn't even get into a Texas lawschool), a miserable business man (companies flailed and failed under his management), and its no surprise that he's a miserable president.
I really wish Bush would just go away. The whole world is mixing up his administration with the US as a whole, where Bush's policies are usually sneaky enough to escape notice or buried in issues too complex for most people to take the time to sort through.
This is an extremist government that believes it is ok to hold foreign nationals without trial or legal counsel, stifle scientific research, place the entire country under as much surveillance as possible, subpoena doctors' medical records to bully them into political apathy and generally make us "safer" by pissing off the entire world!
Don't blame us all!
If you live in a developed nation and drink milk (or many other foods supplimented with vit. D) you don't need any exposure to UV radiation. You don't have a very good argument for limiting exposure to the sun.
"Drug related crime" is a misnomer, "prohibition related crime" is the more accurate and correct phrase.
We'd all be better off if we would stick to discussing the facts rather than immediately questioning people's motivations. No matter what the political bent of these scientists is, the question is whether or not there is any truth in their charges and should something be done. Let's try to be adults.
Let's find some old farmers and teach them science and have THEM do the study - I can't think of anyone else who really doesn't care about the politics.
Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.
U.S. government corruption: Two Stories
Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.
Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-R
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,11511
Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsir
...in the back of room, in a tone certain to make you know you shouldn't have forgotten the one "logy" that all but turned Evolution upside down from the sixties on... :)
I love that 'labeled by some' phrase, by the way. It's a very useful tool for discrediting something when you don't have the balls to take responsibilty for doing so yourself. If you did THAT, why, you actually might have to provide some evidence to back your claim, and you can't have that, can you? "Yes, it's been labeled by some that way. Not by me of course..." Pathetic.
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Your comment about CFC's would be laughable if your post were not modded so high. Raw chlorine does not get into the upper atmosphere and is not stable enough to do damage. CFC's are very unique. The CFC ban is one of the few absolute scientific environmental succeses of our lifetime. The scientists involved made predictions based on courses of action, the politicians followed their advice, and the ozone hole is behaving as predicted given the ban.
In conclusion, GFY.
A scientist.
Just a possibility: /. username, but at least you'll know my own biases (which I'm trying to change). I won't believe anyone who says they aren't even a little bit biased one way or another.
What if the report is to protect their reputation? It's feasible that 20 like biased scientists could group together to produce such a report that bolsters their previous findings as well as denounces the policies that were built on research by competing scientists. You can report scientific facts and still ignore other scientific facts that don't lead to the same conclusion and opinions as your own. Such research can draw extremely difference conclusions.
All I'm asking is that before you take Michael's "unbiased" commentary for fact, do some research of your own into these 20 scientists and I'll bet that you could draw pretty strong links from their findings to their funding.
I'm no Bush Administration lover, but I hate to see science bent for political reasons, to the right or the left. In the end, this could weaken valid environmental science, because we rush to use the data for our own political views. Example? Green Party. They could do more harm than good for environmental protection.
And for the record, I get flack for my
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
I'll let you in on a little secret: Bush will be reelected. Reports like this, missing WMD and a monstrous deficit will not be enough to dethrone him.
What you should really be scared of is Bush's next four years. Without the chance of being reelected he's going to push hard for policy that even some of his supporters can't stomach. Think the things listed above are bad? Prepare for worse.
But, other scientists have told me drinking cow's milk is bad! And that adding supplements to food is also bad! What will I do?! It says something to me that sun exposure was so important to humans, that skin pigmentation changed to allow for it. People of the north have lighter skin specifically to allow more Sun in.
Never mind the fact that you NEED some ionizing radiation in order to get vitamin D.
Yes, we need some. What we don't need is excessive exposure, numbnuts.
Never mind the fact that an absurd amount of chlorine blows off of the oceans each year
so because chlorine blows off of the oceans, we shouldn't be concerned with our ADDING to that amount? It didn't occur to you that maybe the environment is capable of dealing with a certain amount of "natural pollution", but our adding to the pollution is what sends things askew?
Never mind the fact that in the late 50's the ozone hole was gigantic.
give us some links with your claims, numbnuts.
Never mind the fact that a volcanic eruption will spew tons and tons of this shit into the air, far more that we have in the entire history of industry.
Lie. And again, why add to it? What's so wrong about minimizing pollution?
It's clearly due to us. Sure, because that's what greenpeace says.
Yes, because greenpeace is the only one making these claims. Are you willingly ignorant?
What I got from that statement was the following dilemma: Those with ties to the lead industry should have more intimate knowledge of lead, but that limited intimacy also makes them dependent upon the future of that industry. This dependency makes it easy to apply FUD to anything they say.
The question then becomes, who do you trust more? Someone who doesn't necessarily know the topic as well but has nothing to lose/gain or someone who probably knows the topic quite well but has something to lose/gain.
The above is really just a generalization applicable to any industry. Of course, I should eventually RTFA.
This is not my sig.
He also conflated CFCs with Vulcanic emissions. Not right or wrong enough to be even a clever troll, but the mods fell hook, line, sinker...
Sure the earth is warming. It's been going on since the end of the last ice age. Human CO2 emissions are probably not the cause.
The data is conspicuosly lacking. What's the volume of the earth's atmosphere? How much CO2 do humans produce? Compare this to CO2 emssions from forest fires which burn constantly around the globe, 24x7x365 (x10,000+ years).
Mesopotamia was once fertile. Now it's a desert. Human activity had nothing to do with it.
a) the 2001 tests did not involve multiple warheads. Meaning that all the tests showed was that if we are guaranteed to hit an incoming missile, we can blow it up. OMG! Explosives that work! (Supersonic missiles hitting supersonic targets have been working quite well for decades now) I fail to see how this is an incrmeental improvement.
b) Our allies are willing to develop the technology, but they cannot afford it. This system will cost, what, a trillion dollars over the long-term? The whole point is that our money would be best spent elsewhere because this technology is just too expensive to develop, with minimal benefits (theres a hundred other ways to delpoy a nuke other than in ICBM form), assuming that is it's even possible, given the number of counter-measures that an attacker could use.
c) About AEGIS: The question of scale is the whole problem. An ICBM, deployed from mainland, China, Russia, Europe, etc, will be too high over the ocean for AEGIS to intercept. And if AEGIS improves, the enemy can just shoot the things higher (say, into space).
What is that? There is a lead industry out there?
What do they promote? More lead in paint?
Whats next TV ads for the lead industry:
"Got lead?"
The Soviets for much of their existence set a national scientific "Truth". This truth was sometimes arbitrarily chosen and sometimes outright false (see Lysenko). If a scientist anywhere disputed this claim, this was subversiveness and dissent and they could be jailed or killed. This went beyond "do not question this". This meant that biology professors were forced to teach this theory despite the obvious holes in it, were meant to do all of their research work assuming Lysenko to be true, and were expected-- if they did research tests of some sort that contradicted the Lysenko theories-- to fudge the numbers from the tests to make them "correct".
The Soviets had a long-running policy of inherently distrusting the concept of a scientist. This does not mean "discouraging or pooh-poohing the results of scientists". This means internally labelling scientists as dangerous, period, putting blanket surveillence on any and all of these potential "threats", and if the surveillence turned up anything that could be construed as "subversive", "correcting the problem".
The Soviets would regularly kidnap scientists, cut off their communication with the outside world and rather than whatever it was said scientists wanted to work on, compel them by force to instead work on chemical weapons development and testing.
You either have a vast wealth of ignorance on this subject, or you have no sense of perspective whatsoever.
Why not read a thorough debunking of the "1970s Scientists predicted Ice Age" myth.
Athletic Scholarships to universities make as much sense as academic scholarships to sports teams.
The UCS is a well-known, far-left organization. Its conclusions must be taken with much salt. Would you describe the Heritage Foundation as "independent?" It's no less independent than the UCS.
Anyone that would expect the UCS to have anything at all complimentary to say about Bush would be as delusional as anyone that thinks they are unbiased.
It's proven, eh?
So where's your control for your experiment? Where's the repeatability?
And scientists can't be biases? Then why did Denmark set up Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty? Which, when it reviewed a book by Bjorn Lomborg" The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".
But wait, a review of the DCSD's finding ( see here and here) found that was a "clear mistake" that the committee had failed to give Mr Lomborg an opportunity to defend himself and the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.
The best quote? the committee's judgment had used "condescending and emotional" language
Something like saying If you disagree, you are wrong, perhaps?
Maneuver at what stage? Most missle-defence systems are targeted at the re-entry phase. You'd need a guided warhead to dodge incoming interceptors. I imagine that accuracy would be harder to achieve in such a warhead - good enough to hit a city, but probably not good enough to hit a hardened facility (nothing can resist a direct hit from a strategic nuclear weapon - but if you're off by even 100 yards it becomes possible to protect against).
Most boost-phase strategies seem to be based on lasers - so dodging won't help there either.
I'm not saying it won't work, but if an interceptor can hit a warhead falling from space at mach 20, I find it hard to believe that the warhead could employ sufficient maneuverability to dodge the interceptor.
Wow. Completely misinterpret what was said, and get four--count 'em, four--mod points for it.
The point is that sunlight is not inherently bad for you. It's necessary. Overexposure appears to be linked to melanoma... but riddle me this. People have been exposing themselves to the sun for thousands of years. Why is it only in the last 20 years or so that we've identified all these various forms of malignant skin lesions? Is it possible--just possible--that it's just just sunlight?
Science means always asking questions, and never, ever believing that you know all the answers.
The difference is that a navy ship does not get attacked by hundreds if not thousands of missles...
Actually, that's not true. Modern Aegis is programmed to track and destroy, literally, hundreds of missiles per destroyer or cruiser, thousands per battle group. The systems were originally designed to counter the Soviet threat, and one of their known tactics was to use target saturation.
You are correct, though, that ICBMs would typically travel much more quickly than anti-ship missiles. There are some other big differences, too, like the survivability of an ICBM to proximity fused weapons (Exocets are much smaller and more easily destroyed than Tridents, for example). But like I said, it's only a question of scale, and none of those hurdles are insurmountable. Like the old saying goes, if we can put a man on the moon, we can knock a missile out of the air.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
I'd love to say that only on \. (slash intentionally leaning to the left) would such a pathetic excuse for an argument be modded "interesting" ... unfortunately, conservatives are just as bad. Seems like every time I turn around I want to scream at people "stop being on my side ... you're an idiot!", regardless of whether my view on that topic is more liberal or conservative.
I don't mind people disagreeing with me, in fact I enjoy it very much. What I do mind is people disagreeing with me mindlessly.
1. Distort scientific results
2. Poison environment and accelerate global warming
3. ????
4. Profit!
Believe it or not this does actually work and is profitable so I guess its really an old economy business plan.
@de_machina
Yep, all them people with book learnin' ain't to be trusted, Jeb.
After all, a good conservative ideology beats proper science any day. Right?
Part of the reason that college professor's and scientists seem so liberal is that in the context of America today, anything approaching rationality or lack of bias will appear "liberal". In other words, unless you're a reactionary conservative, you're liberal in the eyes of the Bush administratino. So, if you are highly educated and able to think in a scientific and balanced manner, then chances are that you will be labeled a "liberal" by the Bush administration, and perhaps even labeled that by the "liberal" media.
I am sick of seeing leftist sources quoted as Gospel while anything that is even remotely contrary is dismissed as biased, mindless drivel. The parent quotes a good, factually based analysis of the REAL motivations behind this group. If we're going to question anything posted by a right-of-center source, we should do the same for a way-left-of-center group.
And things were so much better back then.
Science is just knowledge governed by systematic quality control. That doesn't mean that its conclusions are always correct or complete, but it does mean that the methods and reasoning behind them are available and open to scrutiny. If, as you say, it's performed poorly over the last few centuries, then I suppose we should consider abandoning the scientific method and officially making the President of the United States the Supreme Arbiter of Knowledge and Truth. That's essentially what the conservatives are arguing in this thread.
Hey! That's it!
Let's attack the source of the money!
No! Don't look at the facts! Look at the money!!
Or Wait! Let's find something else to talk about!!
But... god forbid... we actually look at facts and use science and logic to solve our problems any more. That would require thinking... and that would be waaayyy too hard.
What was this article about again?
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
This isn't proper science. This is politically fueled, spun pseudo-science. Follow the money.
The members are listed here Objective my ass.
It turns out that more than 80% percent of the worlds research studies and almost all of the long term studies recomends that sugar should only should account for no more than 10-15% of a healthy diet. WHO recomends 10% based on their own studies, other university studies recomends 15%
Despite this, the Bush administartion and the official US position on this is that a 25% limit is "better". They site their own researchers; most of them are sponsored by sugar companies and their lobby organizations.
Some links:
Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO
US accused of sabotaging obesity strategy
US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'
So just because the current presidents whants to get reelcted thousands of americans will die in the future from diabetes and hearth problems.
Melius mori in libertate quam vivere in servitute.
Philip Anderson won for "fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems".
Paul Berg won "for his fundamental studies of the biochemistry of nucleic acids, with particular regard to recombinant-DNA"
Find any climatologists in that list?
Demon Hauted World - by Carl Sagan
An EXCELLENT book on the state of science in the world. Yea, it's high-level but so is this stuff so it's a perfect reference.
Good call bringing this one up.
For that first paragraph I thought that your sarcasm was perfectly dosed. Then I realized you weren't being sarcastic.
So basically you're saying that there is no global warming, SUVs are safe and get 30 mpg, and letting governments do whatever they say without standing up for any cause is the right thing to do.
He said pretty much the same thing in The Price of Loyalty by Suskind. Most meeting were scripted and non-partisan information was not getting to the president. Having served in both the Nixon and Ford administrations he was disturbed that the decision making PROCESS had become almost completely driven by political issues and controlled by Cheney. It's fine if having reviewed the facts you make one decision or another but to not review the facts seemed reckless in his mind.
He claims that you can fool people utterly just by making bullshit "scientific-sounding" statements.
He then proves this, by making some totally bullshit "scientific-sounding" statements, and fools the moderators utterly.
A bit meta, but it works.
as to why we are all taking the time to bitch about Bush when the majority of us (if not all) aren't in politics (we're all smart enough to know better), so we don't know why the decisions are made. I may or may not agree, but shit, I'm not going to sit here and critize an admidistation who made choices that I don't know all of.
Yeah, UCS sure was thinking rationally when they claimed the stealth bomber would cause a war with the Soviet Union. Oh, wait, that didn't happen!
Junkscience.com? Yeah, no bias there, either.
Give me a break. What a bunch of right-wing loonies.
funding? what are your sources? i've noticed that the cry of the pro-dubyas is that any disagreement with the dubya's policies must in fact be from liberal sources.
There is nothing wrong with identifying what the agenda of someone who puts forth a study, article, recommendation, or whatever is in order to better discern the bias and fallacies that agenda leads to. If tomorrow's Slashdot headline read, "Proprietary software superior, Microsoft study finds" would everyone ditch Linux, or view the report with a healthy dose of skepticism? Even highly respected scientists, who are supposed to personify objectivity, can have the interpretation of their results influenced by peer opinion, personal beliefs, need for funding, and so on.
A rational approach to this news would be to:
No, step #4 is not a "severe deficiency in logical thinking", but rather an important component of rational thought.
a) The 2001 tests showed that a certain class of missile could be destroyed before reaching the point when it would deploy its multiple warheads. Pretty important thing to prove.
b) If our "allies" were willing to develop their own defenses, they'd up their military spending. As long all of them combined spend less than we do on our own, we'll be stuck protecting them, too. (Personally, I don't have a problem with this. I sleep much more comfortably at night, knowing that as much as France and Germany might hollar at us, that's all they can do.)
c) Aegis isn't likely to be the system used in the long run, not for continental defense. Somehow I doubt you could mount enough missiles, with enough engine capacity, on ships to make it worthwhile. That's what places like Idaho and Nebraska are for. That said, Aegis can be seen as one of the first steps to this type of technology, and many of its abilities will likely be built into it.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
*ahem* The primary difficulty in missile interception is that missiles tend to be small objects moving at extremely high velocities. This requires a control system that can react on millisecond timescales, with an accuracy level that's almost rediculous. The integrated commuincations/control system is by far the most difficult part, we've had missile tracking systems for decades.
Why don't you try reading this link: at Salon. If you do not believe that, I'd suggest further research. To summarize the link says that:
I'm really tired of people who do not understand the complexity of military interception systems downplaying the accomplishments our military has made.
Whether or not you agree that Star Wars was a good idea, it's clear that it's quite a technological achievement. The equations alone would blow most of slashdotter's minds
Disclaimer: i'm not a rocket scientist (yet). A few more years to go
Cheers,
Justin Wick
...is there anything in that report about where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been hiding?
"Anyone that has ever gotten an idea based on any of my work and done something better with it-good for you."--J.Carmack
Because academia has embraced political correctness so completely, it has undermined the one-time public perception that academia is unbiased and apolitical. Even if these scientists are right, the obvious politically correct bias of their institutions and academia in general makes it possible for the Bush administration to deflect this criticism by labelling it as another example of left-wing political correctness in academia. By embracing "scientifically challenged" policies like affirmative action (reverse discrimination) and Title IX, tolerating the extreme left-wing faculty rantings about patriarchies and globalization, moral equivalency to support the actions of terrorists, etc., academia has justly earned a reputation as a breeding ground for anti-establishment liberal extremists. Good scientists in academia should demand that their institutions abandon their politically correct ways, because it hurts their own ability to be taken seriously by the public.
"The strongest conspiracy is the conspiracy of the stupid"
if you don't get the results you want, juggle the committee membership and/or shitcan the report and just do what you want anyway.
if this is supposed to be a new economy, how come they still want my old fashioned money?
Chlorine might indeed rise from the ocean in prodigious quantities. The problem wasn't pure chlorine, but CFCs. Pure chlorine rarely makes it into the upper atmosphere. CFCs however were a perfect vehicle for delivering chlorine into the upper atmosphere where each cholorine atom could ionize several thousand O3 atoms.
A few years back the man who had discovered and characterized CFC's effects (he won a nobel prize for it) talked to our colloquim. I find it a bit distasteful to accuse him and his collegues of inflating their claims. Also remember that their claims weren't winning them friends and fortune; they were raising their flag in front of an industry that had no intention of stopping production. I find that many ecologists end up in this position. I don't see how broaching enviornmental problems wins them any money. It's the people who back up those with the pockets to pay who seem to have the most to gain financially. Thus said, I prefer not to think of the world as a place where ever single person is doing back door deals and slinking around like little weasles.
I would agree with you that sometimes Greenpeace's rhetoric is a bit strong, but I wouldn't throw out what they say just because of that. In my eyes the case that humans are contibuting to global warming has grown from possible to quite likely. In the past few years several major reports have been published that are quite damning because they back up their claims with mountains of high quality research.
If I got any of the science wrong, please forgive me...
There are two separate ideas that fall under the name "evolution." The first is the basic idea of one thing evolving into another-- there are a number of examples that we have watched happen right before our eyes. The common example is the English moth, biston betularia-- whose population was 95% soot-colored after heavy industry in the late 1800s, but was primarily light-colored in the years prior.
The second is the theory that evolution is responsible for everybody being here. This isn't provable, but it seems to be the best no-magical-stuff explanation we have right now. This is where you're right-- evolution-as-creation is a theory.
The idea that evolution happens is a solid fact. We just don't know if it's the only thing at work that could have led to people. (or other various animals and plants)
the original was exactly the same thing. No scientist ever said "since extended exposure to sunlight causes cancer don't go outside" or "wear SPF 100000" his was a "fucking strawman argument"
I find your cursing and lack of reading comprehension more pathetic
Wilkins: Well um sir I believe that non Ec science includes fertility research, pollution control, other-
Roberts: Dammit Wilkins I'll tell you the truth. There is no such thing as Ec science and Non-Ec science.
Wilkins: But sir the president says-
Roberts: I know damn well what president says I'm telling you right now that those categories are determined completely by politics. There is no difference, scientifically speaking, between reproductive research and agricultural research. They are completely equivalent.
Not the greatest quote, and I mangled it somewhat. But it "just popped in there" in relation to the topic. :) Bush is trying to kill off "non ec" points of view, ie, those he disagrees with.
Quote from the Illuminatus! trilogy. R.A. Wilson and R.A. Schaad (Eris rest his gentlemanly soul).
Yeah and so what. Consume and die.
http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nati on/7985452.htm
That article is far more researched then the junk food NYTimes issue. It not only presents more and more specifically of the scientist's arguments it also presents some non-partisan folks who disagree with their assessment.
Of course, it is not partisan to refuse to post a defense of accusations. Or, is it partisan to bring out such a report when you are finding the climate research budget being cut by a tiny fraction from its' 2.2 billion annual budget.
2.2 billion.
Waving the red flag to warn the world of potential problems will never earn you friends in the world of business or in the minds of the blinkered public, most of whom believe that corporations never lie or harm the public.
It doesn't mean much now, it's built for the future.
Why is Bush's crowd always 'troubled' about these things? .. as if they were dainty sensitive little people.
"Ouch, you're troubling my poor little mind with your big sciency words and all your facts."
"Gee, I'm just so troubled that you noticed that we're lying through our teeth. It just hurts so much when point this out to everyone. Please let us deceive in peace so that we won't be troubled."
Gore doesn't have a stellar academic record either, it's perhaps even a bit worse than Bush's (Bush at least completed grad school).
Gore made multiple C's at Harvard, also at least one D (in a science class, no less). Even worse, his grad school record from Vanderbilt is miserable... he received failing grades in five out of eight classes in the divinity school over the course of three semesters, and also failed to make it through Vanderbilt's law school (though he apparently left voluntarily to run for congress).
You can read it all in the Widipedia... text of Gore's page is here
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?
Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought
Bullshit. They can suffer from ideologies just as much as anyone. Some of the most ideologically blinkered people I have met in my life have had PhDs and were leaders in their professional fields. They get so many accolades in their field they think they can do no wrong elsewhere.
--- Ban humanity.
And that is what he is joking about - almost a century is gone and our best scientists still can't come up with a name capable of capturing John and Jane Public's imagination. :)
Since
We have fabulous technology that allows us to keep people out of a given building, right? The vaults at Fort Knox, CIA Headquarters, the Whitehouse, whatever. But for the life of us we can't keep people out of the country. The borders, both land and sea, are porous. This is the difference between protecting a single ship, and protecting the continental United States. Yes it's just a matter of scale, but the orders of magnitude may take generations to overcome, and, personally, I don't think that it's a forgone conclusion that it will happen.
Incremental improvements are nothing. That program needs substantial, dramatic, improvements just to prove it's feasability, much less that it's achievable within out lifetimes.
So a very nasty fellow. But focussing on the history of nastyness by Saddam would have prompted question as why nothing was done about it before. Who was supporting him while he was doing it and how the hell he got into power in the first place.
All questions america rather would not answer.
So WMD it was. As a reasonably intelligent person I can see what the real reason was. Saddam was like the guard dog that had snapped and had to be put down. Nasty and perhaps better care should have been given but this is the real world not some pacifists lala land.
For me and apparently you the reasons that saddam was a loose cannon with same very nasty habbits was enough. For many others it wasn't.
How does this relate to the hiding or falsyfing scientific evidence? Very closely. Instead of just saying, well yes lead is bad but so is making thousands of people jobless and we need the lead, they instead make up fancy reports saying lead ain't bad at all. It insults people like you and me but the people who elected him swallow it hook line and sinker.
Oh he was elected by a majority of americans. To remain silent implies consent and the majority of voters remained silent therefore consenting to bush. Still no option, "none of the above", I guess.
Poster should have spellchecked but poster is a lazy bastard
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
OK, in keeping with the science theme, care to cite a reference proving this claim? And a 9-point font manifesto on www.ihatebushmorethanlifeitself.org isn't proof.
--- Ban humanity.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI _final_fullreport.pdf
Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right? Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?
First of all it was not a radar beacon, and it wasn't tracked by the interceptor, it was used to supplement the remote tracking part of the system (which was not finished yet).
In another post I linked to this article. Do some extra research if you like.
Tracking a missile is not nearly as hard as controlling an interceptor - that was the part the system did not "cheat" at.
I would suggest that you check up on the science behind these tests... I cannot believe the ignorance that is being modded up on slashdot (not that it is your fault, this was not given a lot of coverage).
Cheers,
Justin
Add to this that Russia sucessfully tested a balistic missile that can manuver in flight to dodge missile defense sheilds yesterday.
You mean this ballistic missile test? According to the article, the missile crashed 98 seconds after take-off. Doesn't sound so successful to me.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
As I recall, the Union of Concerned Scientists are the same group that had the Doomsday Clock back in the eighties. Every time an arms negotiation failed or the U.S. mentioned Star Wars the clock ticked one minute closer to midnight. Problem was that as the clocked ticked passed 11:55PM the scientists were running out of time. They started ticking off fractions of minutes. Funny how the fall of the Berlin wall nor the collapse of the USSR neither caused the clock to tick backwards. Also, we never heard from them during the nineties - funny.
The Roman Empire also fell because their leaders kept inbreeding in order to keep maintain the royal blood. Eventually, without (mentally) stable leadership, the empire started to crumble while conspirators plotted to overtake the thrown. The Empire then collapsed/imploded, whichever verb you prefer to describe it.
Facts are one thing.
Where we humans, even scientist-humans, get tripped-up is in the assessment, analysis and interpretation of facts, the consequences of facts, and in deciding what, if anything, should be done in response to facts.
The only thing that we learn from history is that nobody learns anything from history.
...those with functioning minds recognize that these are not the only two sides, and that they are both made up of extremists.
The U.S. would have had the spies shot for espionage, had things been the other way around
Utterly irrelevant to Saddam's non-compliance with something like 17 UN mandates that he comply with the cease-fire conditions that halted the first war (note that I didn't say "ended" because the first war never ended because Saddam never held up his end of the cease-fire negotiations).
What did Saddam expect? A bunch of foreigners would comb his entire country looking for his most prized and hidden weapons and would not be spies? If the person you responded to needs a spoon, you need a brain.
You're saying that Saddam couldn't agree to a cease-fire agreement because he might be spied on? What other brainless forms of apology for a mass-murdering thug can you pull out of your ass?
Gotta make a habit of using the preview button...
...such as Greenpeace, labeled by some as ecoterrorists.
So, tell me... Are you in favor of rounding up everyone that's ever donated monet to Greenpeace and shipping them off to Guatanamo Bay to be detained indefinitely?
And now, as you're nodding your head, think about what kind of government ships dissidents off to jail without due process. Doesn't that scare you a bit?
Anyone but Bush in 2004.
Oh, and the other reason is that liberal and conservative are no longer attached to any meaningful criteria, at least not when they are used by the Bush administration. So, whether someone is a "liberal" or a "conservative" is pretty much a matter of what they call themselves, or in this case, what Bush calls them. This has the purpose of dissociating one's perception of politics from the real world. So, for example, when the Bush administration replies that the scientists seem biased and partisan, people have no objective way of determing whether or not the scientists are in fact biased in the liberal direction, since, after all, we have no objective criteria for being liberal or conservative. It's all relative on planet Bush.
If one wants to gain back their sanity, they need to remember that liberalism and conservatism are attached to well-defined criteria, and that people often don't call themselves what they really are. There is actually a defniition for left and right conservatism and liberalism, it's not relative. Most of the actions of "liberals" in the US are in fact centrist at best, not left-leaning. For example, Clinton dismantled (read, "reformed") the welfare system, slashed social security, and balanced the budget at the expense of many social programs. These are the actions of a fairly conservative centrist, no matter what the rhetoric at the time was. Bush has went into a huge deficit spending money on the rich, worked hard to destroy social programs, and brought about an unprecedented attack on the poor while handing billions to the rich. He is a big government Republican, something we haven't seen since the last time the a Republican took charge. These are the actions of an extreme conservative on a quest for power and domination. His rhetoric may be approaching centrism (i.e. wanting to be a uniter, not a divider), but his actions are decidely less so. To sum things up, if you want to evaluate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative, look at their actions, not their words, and evaluate things in the context of well-defined values, not relative ones (i.e. stay aware of the fact that "left" has a real meaning, not just "to the left of Bush", and same goes for the meaning of the word "right").
SDI didn't work in the eighties, or the nineties, nor the oughts. It's a silly pipe dream designed to fill the pockets of defense contractors. It's like saying we can make an effective defense against gun crimes by making machines which shoot bullets aimed your way out of the air. It's vastly cheaper for them to make bullets than it is for you to build something that can shoot bullets, and it always will be.
There is much pleasure to be gained in useless knowledge.
Of course, it wasn't exactly a secret that there were GPS beacons on the targets. They weren't testing the radar system used to target incoming missiles, they were testing SDI's ability to hit moving targets. Saying this means the tests were 'faked' is like saying when I first try out an application by feeding it known good data to see how it responds I'm 'faking' my QA process.
But hey, if Salon says they were faked, then they must have been. They heard it from Doonesbury, don't ya know.
If it ain't broke, you need more software.
So basically you're saying that there is no global warming...
...SUVs are safe and get 30 mpg...
...letting governments do whatever they say without standing up for any cause is the right thing to do.
The jury is still out on whether humans are causing/have caused global warming.
I didn't say that, I implied they're not evil.
OK, ya got me there. I don't agree with just laying down and letting the guvmint do what it wants. At the same time, I don't have much regard for "professional activists", who are driven more by their desire to change something, anything, than to achieve a particular goal. They're no better, and are in fact basically the same, as professional politicians. I have more regard for the Sarah Bradies of the world, even when I despise their politics, than the professional bandwagon-jumpers-on like the UCS. At least she targetted one thing she thought was important and kept her sights set on it, instead of using a shotgun approach like the UCS appears to have done.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
This is junk science Bush-style versus junk science Union OF Concerned Scientists-style, folks. Nothing important to be seen here. Move along.
Watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode about second hand smoke for a good example of all this.
--- Ban humanity.
The most likely reason we are only now seeing large numbers of melanomas is that people used to die of other things before the melanoma had a chance to appear. Our cells have natural defense mechanisms from DNA damage caused by UV rays, but these are not 100% perfect and mutations can occur. Most of these are benign. However, as we age, the mutations accumulate, and eventually you can get unlucky and have a harmful mutation.
Also, the practice of lounging half-naked in the sun for days on end in relatively new. In the olden days, people wore clothes when they worked outside, not swimsuits.
The link between UV rays and DNA damage is so well-documented that research scientists use it in the lab: they use UV light to fragment DNA or randomly introduce mutations into cells they are studying. Get any basic biochemistry or cell biology book to check my facts if you want.
Yes, we need some sunlight, but not nearly as much as most of us get. In the opinion of this fairly skeptical scientist, the link between sun exposure and melanoma is very strong. I wear my sunscreen.
And it's exactly the same thing that happens in modern science today. If you say something unpopular then people try to shut you up, no matter how correct you are.
But that's okay, no amount of modding will prevent me from saying it.
The problem you describe is however hardly isolated to america. It happens around the world. Here in holland we used to have an tv news program at 8 o'clock on the first channel (we only had one when I grew up then two and now three). It was reasonably good proffesional guy in suit telling the news headlines with a bit behind. Not terribly deep but you got what had happened and could read the indepth stuff in next days newspaper.
What has changed. Well first of all it has gotten shorter not just in pure time but the opening jingle and ending credits have become longer, they have a summary at the beginning and end wich each take about a minute from what is now 15-20 minutes. They extended weather and now always have some human intrest stuff. I remember that during heavy suicide bombings in Israel they had a 5 minute piece on the royal family opening some art show. Good grief. The final killer is that they took the presenter from the childeren news (used to be very good, the biggest real news stories explained a bit more with simpler language or complex words explained) and got all the other presenters to use her language.
To describe the news here now is impossible. CNN is better. At least they don't talk to me in kid speak. Americans complain that american news is biased. It is perhaps. So is dutch news. Doesn't matter if the news is pro-israel or pro-palenstine. They are both biased and not telling the thruth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.
You know what the really funny thing is? All this dumbing down was to get more viewers. Tiny little detail? The old news was often the most watched program, not well watched. ONE in the ratings. Now viewing figures are down. So they are dumbing down even more to attract more viewers.
Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
I keeping with the scientific principles everyone here claims to adore, I challenge someone to cite a reference for a claim, and that gets modded flamebait? Nice.
--- Ban humanity.
Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".
You put those words in quotes. Poor spelling aside, who said them? Who said the words "conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction?"
I'm sick and fucking tired of people misrepresenting the casus belli. There was never talk of imminent threat, there was never talk of conclusive evidence. There was talk of a 12-year history of defiance of the international disarmament process, salted with compelling evidence of continued weapons development programs.
Now, let's pull out a little analogy here. Say you're a cop. You chase a suspect into a dark alley, and he reaches into his pocket and pulls something out. It's dark, you can't see that well. He points it at you.
What do you do? You shoot. That's what you do in that situation. That's what you're supposed to do. When it's all over, you look and see that he pulled out a cell phone. Okay, you shot a guy who didn't have a gun. But you know what? He knew he was being chased by a cop, he turned into a dark alley, and he made what appeared to be a threatening motion with an object pulled from his pocket. It's an unfortunate situation, but nobody can argue that the cop made the wrong decision.
Saddam knew we were serious. He could have put his hands behind his head and waited for us to cuff him, but he didn't. Instead, he reached into his pocket and started to pull something out. So we shot him.
One: there's no proof as yet that Saddam's weapons were not moved into Syria in the weeks leading up to the invasion, as has been repeatedly suggested.
Two: there's no definitive conclusion about his weapons programs yet.
Three: even if he didn't have a single chemical or biological weapon, he still had al Samoud ballistic missiles, missiles which were expressly forbidden to him under UN resolutions.
Four: even if he hadn't had any weapons at all, the US and our allies still would have been justified. We told him to put his hands up and he refused. He made a threatening motion, so we shot him. A clean bust.
Wake up and join us in the real world, okay? Let go of your catchphrases and your buzz words.
People,
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a special interest group with a political agenda. It's not a merit association. Any scientist can join as long as he pays the dues. The scientists who belong to this interest group join because they all share the SAME political philosophy.
There is no difference between this group and PETA except for the knee scraping worship they are given by idiots who think that a PhD and Nobel Prize Winner after your name somehow makes you infallible.
You can tell a great deal about the character of a man by observing those who hate him.
The WHO said that eating too much sugar is bad for you. The sugar companies told the US administration to correct the WHO - a high sugar diet is great for you, and the proof is in the fit healthy people you see in the television adverts for candy!
Thank you for the deep insight, scientist.
Given the intellectual capacity you demonstrate, might I suggest that you run in the next Republican primary? You're a cert to win.
An interview with a former prof said bush got a D in his class. (english)
Also, there are EASY classes and then there are HARD classes. I could have had a 4.0 if I picked the "right" school and took weak classes from easy profs.
In fact, when I took physics from a community college it was far harder than the one the other prof taught. (this prof had a son at MIT and make the course the same---the other did not give a dam)
And the OP wasn't? That was the point.
There is no such thing as the "fact of evolution". You should really check your sources on that one. It's called a theory for a reason.
Actually, evolution was accepted as fact even before Darwin advanced a theory to explain it. Before Darwin, there actually were real scientists (as opposed to religious ideologues masquerading as scientists) who took creation seriously as a theory of the origin of species. But even before Darwin, they had rejected the Biblical notion of creation as patently inconsistent with the data that clearly demonstrated evolution over time. The creationist theories before Darwin tended to postulate multiple creation events at different times and places. Of course, after Darwin, all the real biologists embraced the new theory, leaving behind the Biblical zealots who wouldn't even accept creation theories that didn't agree with Genesis.
Or, do what virtually everyone else does:
If you hate Bush, applaud the study as perfect without questioning it, and depict Republicans as anti-science.
If you like Bush, denounce the study as politically motivated without considering it.
Seems to be the modus operandi here on Slashdot.
Bush is stupid
No WMDs ever existed
Bush can't speak correctly
Ashcroft is stripping every liberty we have
Bush is evil
Reagan was stupid
Global warming is happening right now
These scientists are not bias at all.
Before you flame-bait me, ALL of the above WERE responses by people in this thread.
I beg to differ. The radar used for the "test" was in the completely wrong band anyway. I'm not sayign it's impossible. noone, not even the UCS is saying it's impossible. It's just not a good idea. For the less money then we spend on "star wars 2", we could prevent loose fissile material from ever reaching the hands of the people they shouldn't be in. Eventually the technology will progress anyway without us needing to rush job another expensive ABM system. Besides. A nuclear attack won't come in a missile so much as a suitcase.
- Clean Energy: Forge environmentally and economically sustainable solutions with renewable energy
- Clean Vehicles: Reduce the adverse impacts of cars, SUVs, trucks, and buses
- Climate Change: Promote solutions that slow global warming and reduce its impacts
- Food and Environment: Support the responsible use of biotechnology and antibiotics in agriculture
- Global Environment: Promote scientifically sound solutions to the major problems of global environmental change
- Global Security: Work toward a world free of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction
- Habitats and Biodiversity: Help to protect forests, control invasive species, and conserve the diversity of life
- Nuclear Power Safety: Strengthen monitoring of nuclear plants and their regulators
Where is the objectivity here?? You could easily post this same info on the Sierra Club website and no one would give it a second look because of their reputation. Throw a name like 'Union of Concerned Scientists' at it though, and it must be valid. I can't find one thing in this list that anyone would disagree with.The methods for accomplishing those goals are another matter. This group has simply stated that anyone who disagrees with our methods is wrong and must be removed from office. I think that is scarier that George W. The last thing we need is a bunch of like-minded environmentalists in power. We will be wipping our butts on
Yawn
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
GWB was born on third base and claims he hit a triple. How this makes him the candidate of morality and trustworthiness, I cannot understand.
It placed me near Nelson Mandela which surprised me - I thought I was pretty centrist economically - but its not exactly an insult.
Back in the 1970's, there was a USSR scientist who had weird biological theories that really hindered work done in that country by real biologists...this is just the same sort of thing where the people in power who control all the purse strings, if they have some sort of ideological (or in the case of the bush administration, losts of ideillogical axes to grind (no stem cell research, no nanotechnology assembler research (what do they think "builds" people and everything else inside cells "magic fairies or just a box that says "things happen in here that is driven by our GOD (christian) and we don't want to know any more")) you would think that we still live in the middle ages when the church dictated what went on in the world and what you could think and whatever you thought, it had better tow the party line, oh and if you could please support the current wars against all the unwashed heathens non-believers out there...It also mirrors what happened in the early 90's when the first Bush administration had NASA reject any proposals for SETI research...of course nowadays, the very popular SETI@home inerest shows that there are lots of people who don't buy this head-in-the-sand mentality and just look at all the current research supporting the possiblilty of life on other worlds (rover and opportunity on mars for instance), and the research showing atmospheres on other planets that could support life...you won't get that from any religions who veiw earth as the only planet with life on it...
Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:
Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed
If I get this right, your saying there something can have a beneficial effect for you, that it can't have a bad effect.
If that's it, I'll have to inform you that it's quite possible to have something that is both good and bad for yourself. Another good example is breathing air, with it's high oxygen content. You can't live without it, but it does cause considerable amount of damage to your body for you inhaling it and it getting distributed through your body.
Quickshot
Wow. you really are the pro-choice poster child are'nt you? THERE IS NO NOBEL PRIZE FOR CLIMATOLOGY.
I guess a liberal extremist in academia didn't like me trying to clue good scientists at academic insitutions into tha fact that their politically-correct extremist colleagues are creating a PR problem for academia that hurts their own ability to be taken seriously by the public.
Pay no attention to the domain; this transcript is widely available if you just do a Google search. The scoop is, back in 1975, environmental scientists were playing chicken llittle telling us that the world was threatened by global cooling. We're still here, aren't we? Now we're all going to die because of global warming.
Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
Gore isn't holding any federal level office right now. Gore isn't spending us into a huge deficit. Gore isn't involved with America's current "energy policy". Why even mention Gore for any reason other than to try to reduce criticism of Bush?
...go to www.lomborg.com to see replies to the various branches of the Holy Church of Luddites.
If all they want to do is get reelected, and you give them a 10 year term, then they will spend 10 years trying to get reelected.
Work is punishment for failing to procrastinate effectively.
a majority of the American people have granted them that trust.
Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.
Big Daddy, Johnny, Burp, Aunt Zelda, Scott, Slurp, Big Momma
This only confirms my fears. I'm just hoping that Bush isn't in office if an asteroid ever comes our way. Can you imagine how many oil drillers he knows that look like Bruce Willis? Man, that would be some nightmare.
There are actually three pronunciation for the word "nuclear" in the dictionary, and "nukular" is one of them.
Repeat after me: "Texas, it's a whole other country."
Believing that creation explains the way we got here better than evolution does is not unscientific. Denying that any sort of evolution happens is unscientific, but that doesn't make creation unscientific.
Creation hasn't been proven scientifically, but neither has evolution in the sense that we evolved from other life forms, or that the world originated through evolution. Studying the world and believing that the evidence points to creation is not invalid. It's an interpretation of the evidence.
Granted, some have gone too far and decided that since the world was created then no form of evolution could ever be true. But that subset doesn't make the whole.
That being said, I'm making no defense of Bush here necessarily. That's not my point.
The most likely reason we are only now seeing large numbers of melanomas is that people used to die of other things before the melanoma had a chance to appear.
The age group most likely to get malignant melanoma is 30-45.
Our cells have natural defense mechanisms from DNA damage caused by UV rays, but these are not 100% perfect and mutations can occur.
What genetic or environmental factors affect those natural defense mechanisms?
Also, the practice of lounging half-naked in the sun for days on end in relatively new. In the olden days, people wore clothes when they worked outside, not swimsuits.
Not long-sleeve shirts. There was just as much sun exposure on their arms, shoulders, and backs as we have today.
The link between UV rays and DNA damage is so well-documented that research scientists use it in the lab
True, but that doesn't explain the change in occurrence in melanoma over time. There's something else going on, too. YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.
Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?
A: Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens
I beleive the president has said "we haven't found them yet, we're still looking"
Yet people keep asking "where are they ?"
and the answer is still "we haven't found them yet, please stop fucking pestering us"
and then the question changes: "well, gosh, if you cant find any, wasn't invading iraq wrong ? wasn't it all a sham ?"
and then the answer changes (because the question did) to "saddam needed to go and you and i both know it, so stop playing political games"
Reporters are complete assholes. Reporters get "noticed" by being assholes. If you don't ask the question that stumps or challenges the speaker, you're a nobody. It doesn't matter if your question means anything or not; the current political arena makes it unacceptable for the president to say "shut up with your trolling bullshit, already, if you're so goddamned smart why don't you come up here and tell us your error free grand plan"
thats exactly what i'd answer; maybe thats one reason im not a successful politician :)
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
The funny thing is, when I evaluate my own actions, not my beliefs, I'm fairly conservative. But, it's more of a survival mode type of conservativism. It's not a matter of not wanting to help people, it's a matter of there not being enough of a safety net for me to be able to afford to (at least not in any meaningful way). That's the way most Americans actually operate, it's driven by a survival instinct, with no choice of being able to help people. People like my brother on the other hand, who holds very conservative values, actually on the surface seems to behave in a more liberal manner. The inconsistency doesn't make much sense, until you realize that for someone who earns $200K and above every year, and has a net worth over a million, giving 1K a year to the poor amounts to little more than good PR and a tax-break. This is of course why most of the wealthy in the US give money to charity, it's just good Public Relations, it helps keep poor people from getting too pissed off and rebelling. Most of them would never actually take an approach that would permanently fix the problem, as that would also (likely) mean that they would have to give up some of their power and status too.
That's what most people are trained not to notice though, is that reality and rhetoric often do not correlate very well. The Soviet Union was never anything remotely resembling Communism. On the other hand, we don't resemble free market Capitalism either (and we're getting further away every day). Both systems have the same problem, they have no checks and balances for preventing power from being transferred to the hands of a few. While the rhetoric of Communism is clearly against concentration of power, the system itself doesn't really do anything to keep power out of the hands of dictators.
Capitalism has the same flaw. Just because capitalism doesn't necessarily result in a dictatorship doesn't mean that it won't. But, you're not supposed to notice that. Much like the Soviets were encouraged to keep going after the ideal of Communism no matter how bad things got, we are encouraged to go after the ideal of a "free" market, even though we've been at it for centuries, no matter how bad things get here in the US. You aren't supposed to notice that the statistics are showing that poverty is increasing and wealth is concentrating at the top. (This mean, of course, that on average, if you are born poor, you will die with even less than what you started with.) You aren't supposed to notice that, you're supposed to only notice the case of "rags to riches" like Bill Gates, where he went from "rags", which is apparently a free ride at Harvard, to "riches", which is apparently a dictatorship over a vast section of the economy. His thirst for power and money is enough to make Saddam Hussein blush, but that's the American way. You also aren't supposed to notice that the only reason wealth was as evenly distributed as it was in the US is because land was given away to the poor, which has nothing to do with capitalism, and actually resembles socialism in a way. But again, I digress.
You're analogy is flawed. SDI could've worked, remember that they're not shooting bullets at us, they're shooting missiles. If we could shoot bullets at missiles it very well could have worked, which is where the whole railgun idea got started. You're shooting slugs at these huge lumbering ICBMs.
Even in terms of a full strike, it could still be possible to develop defense systems which target all such missiles (even thousands of them) and knock them down.
The only problem with SDI was nuclear submarine strikes would still be hard to defend against.
I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.
By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.
Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.
Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.
Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
My two cents,
Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Look, I'ma War President [smirk]. Since 9/11, we realized we can't sit around waiting for things to happen. We need to act now. Al Queda operatives are trying to destroy America. Saddam was a dangerous evil dictator. By hurting big business, the terrorists will win. These are things we know. We haven't yet proven a link between Al Queda and these evil scientists, but rest assured, when we do find it, I will act upon that intelligence.
Here come da fudge!
the scientists represent the 'truth' party, and the administration represents the 'lies' party.
Bingo.
Couple of points:
1.) Spending is not decided on by the President in the US system, it's decided by congress, with the president merely having a veto. Thus, saying Reagan was 'liberal' on spending, while Clinton was 'conservative' is meaningless - they both served mostly under a hostile congress, and thus had to adapt. Clinton started out liberal (under a Democratic congress), and became more conservative as congress changed hands.
2.) The UCS is most definately a liberal organisation. Just take a look at their front page for chrissakes!
3.) As for the "destruction of social programs" and the "unprecedented attack on the poor", what excactly did you have in mind? The Drug benefit? "No Child Left Behind"? Name 'em or step down from the soapbox.
Open inquiry allows the data that industry people submit and that environmental people submit to be compared with other data to determine their validity for making decisions. Some proprietary data might be best kept secret, but keeping data used for public policy analysis secret should require fairly stringent conditions. Analysis of policy in fact requires openness. Closed meetings and discussions beg one to ask whether the stated motivations and analysis are the real ones, and prevent the refutation of bad logic and decision making (because no one simultaneously knows the input into the policy and the full set of data supporting or contradicting it, or those that do won't discuss them openly).
Secrecy in gov't requires trust from citizens, trust that has been violated often enough that it is hard to give. Secrecy without obvious benefits to the gov't or the country is destructive of the freedoms we have and that the gov't depends on (to generate the money it needs to work, for example). The benefits (to anyone other than the Bush Administration and his political friends) don't seem to be present. The US was created by people who did not believe that such trust was a good idea because it was a gateway to despotism, and subsequent events have not disproven the wisdom of their opinion.
Solid analysis can stand the light of reason.
These scientists have only two asses!!!
They are of no use to me.
Now this is more like it...
The UCS is, has been, and always will be political first and scientific second. They always come down on the left side of the equation. They aren't unbiased. Their analysis is politically motivated.
this ought to be funny - how exactly did geology change evolution since the 60's on?
... hi bingo
Anyone but Bush in 2004. This is the most asinine thing I believe I have ever heard and I hope you do not vote. Just the thought that there are people out there like you scares me more than any two people on the far left or far right. BTW, the people in GTMO are not "dissidents." And the answer to your question would be Communist governments.
Here
Here are their main findings:
1.There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.
I must say that I'm *shocked* (*shocked*!) that anyone could suppose the Bush administration has ever been anything less than completely forthright about anything with the American public (cough, IRAQ, cough). I mean, they've never stretched or distorted facts to fit their preconceptions before, ever. Really!
"One of their biggest backers is the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, which regularly donates to many other groups such as Greenpeace, labeled by some as ecoterrorists."
While the biggest backer on the other side is the Bush family, which regularly donates to many other groups such as Iraq and Iran, labeled by some as real terrorists.
and I do have statistics at the Master's level which allows me to understand it.
And more bright suggestions?
"biased towards scientific truth"
:) everybody beleives in something they cant prove. in the case of science, it's that their assumptions and axioms are the right ones :)
a) scientific truth is an oxymoron. the scientific process, as you know, requires axioms as its foundation, and upon those hypotheses are formulated, based on observations of phenomena
theroies are developed that seem to adequately explain the observations given the axioms all have pre-agreed to.
whats the point of this ?
Science is always our "best guess". That doesn't mean it's right.
On issues that matter, there will always be political involvement, even on the part of the scientists.
so science really boils down to a guess that seems reasonable, based on what some people came up with, based on their understanding of other things. people with biases of their own (including the bias that the scientific method, and scientific research is in itself infallable and absolute.. science is the new "magic" for most people)
Look at it this way - nobody does research into global warming unless they have a viewpoint about it one way or another. They either want to "prove" that its a problem, or "prove" that it isn't. The fact that there's any debate about it at all should be enough to convince you that there's no such concept as "scientific truth", at least as far as humans can discern, and it all boils down to arguments for or against something.. the argument presented either convinces you that its more likely than not "correct" or "incorrect"..
theoretical math is the only absolute in the universe. thats why its theoretical. anything else is religion. at least religious people aren't afraid to call themselves such. the hypocrites are the "scientific elite" that think they're above the religious types
(time and time again we've seen that science is an iterative process of discovering why the old assumptinos were wrong)
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Because he paid you off?
The UCS has a history of supporting left-wing dogma. I've seen many commentaries on their reports over the years, and every one shows the UCS opposing the U.S. or capitalism. The UCS can never be trusted.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
You need some sunlight to produce vitamin D; therefore, therefore, sunlight cannot cause cancer.
Overexposure to UV radiations is what heightens the risk of cancer. About 5-10 minutes a day, which is sufficient to produce the necessary Vitamin D, is not considered overexposure and hence if you are unprotected only for such a small period of time, then you are not in much of a risk.
Vitamin D also plays an important role in regulating the production of cells, thereby countering effects of cancer.
----\\
The memory management on the PowerPC can be used to frighten small children. -Linus
It's time. You've (as a community) proven, time and
again, that you are no longer capable
of handling the governmental duties of this nation.
It's time you collectively admitted that it's messed up
beyond the "We'll fix it next time" BS.
It's time to rewrite back to the beginning and start over.
All we need you to do is "Admit" that this is truly the
case and we can begin rebuilding the USA before
it becomes the FUSA (Former United States of America)
In case everyone has forgotten history, this is a pretty
dang large crack in the foundation of ANY republic
that has fallen in the past.
A smidgen of accountability and we'd be a new nation!
CEO median pay for 2002: $10.83 million
Median Household income for 2002: $42,000
(google to find the stats 'cause honestly you're not worth my time)
I've run a few senarios where the median household income is taxed at TWICE the rate of your average CEO, and the CEOs (assuming they are the top 10% of the wealthy) still manage to pay nearly 60% of the total taxes.
If it were truly a graduated tax, you'd expect the very wealthy would be paying a lot more of the tax burden. As it is, they pay less than the median household income.
But when you make about 258 times more than the next guy, I guess you can afford a damn good tax attorney.
Does that answer your question?
I'm sick of picking up the slack of people who want to breed. They think it's their right to shit out flesh turds!
Blar.
It's too bad that the so called liberal media has chosen to focus more on Bush's malaprops than the lies he's telling. While Clinton was impeached (but acquited) of perjury about getting a BJ, Bush gets a free pass for lying about: the justifications for taking our country into war (a necessary and just war anyway IMO); the consequences of his budget ($500+ billion per year!); who would actually benefit from tax cuts ("everyone benfits" when most people won't get anything or "$3000 average refund" because median income earners get $300 while the top .5% get $150,000); all the while forcing everyone in government to contort the facts to fit the Administration's agenda.
While the Dems may be tax and spend party, the Republicans are apparently the borrow and spend party. F'em both.
Environmentalism and Zionism are the topics where the Republican Right is indistinguishable from the Libertarian lunatic fringe (as typified by the Randites and the Cato Institute) - knee jerk reaction every time, ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE COMMIES WHO HATE AMERICA!!!
And for the record, I voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections. I might have voted Green last time around but the party ran that self-aggrandizing ass Nader, and I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.
Let's say that somehow, you're actually right, and SDI works.
What does it work *for*?
What good is it? One, who do you expect to be using MISSLES against us? And two, who do you expect to be using missles against us who Mutually Assured Destruction cannot convince not to use missles?
The only significant attacks on american soil in the last ten years-- hell, in the last fifty years, maybe-- have been made either by airplanes or trucks filled with fertilizer. SDI is going to help against this... how?
Let's turn this around. In '83-'84 The Raeganites said that SDI was a worthy thing to research. 20 years later they have practically nothing to show for it. In that same 20 years Al-Qaeda has gone from nothing to a serious threat to the United States that SDI is literally and conceptually powerless against. Can you really say a 1983 criticism that SDI is inneffective and useless to be wrong?
Very good, but are you in fact a scientist? With a Ph.D.? From what university?
The reason I'm asking is that many 'independent' groups such as "Physicians for Social Responsibility" have assumed names that suggest that (in this case) the group consists of a bunch of doctors with concerns about the Iraq war.
In fact, none of PSR's staff are actually physicians, and a $50 donation is all that is required to join the group and play doctor.
If you are in fact areal scientist, I mean no disrespect. I just want to be sure you're the real deal.
There's a Mercedes gap too. I want one and can't afford one, but it's not government's job to do anything about it.
cant: repetition of conventional, trite, or unconsidered opinions.
Either could be correct.
Contribute to civilization: ari.aynrand.org/donate
The scientific community was indeed giving the lie to BushCo's claims about WMD long before the war. Apparently you weren't paying any attention. And neither was much of anyone else, major media included.
And "after the fact?" Responses are by nature "after the fact," that's just the way it is, Sparky.
As for "before the election," what do you want them to do, sit on this stuff until after the election? That makes no sense, and besides, altering the release date to a time that would serve a political agenda would be a political act, which is exactly what you're claiming they're doing. I guess they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, eh?
Though personally I was against the war, I certainly feel Bush could have justified it with information they knew, and the fact that he lied about these WMD, and it is becoming increasing clear that he knowingly lied, is very worrysome.
Bush could easily have argued with known and proven information. Saddamm had gassed thousands of his own people, and even if he had stopped doing so for awhile, he could easily do it again. He also presented plenty of threats to his own people and his neighbors, and was probably training and harboring terrorists (just not AlQueda, who hated him as much as the US). He was taking all the money in the country and making his people starve. He was threatening the US's supply of oil, which if worded right, could be a convincing argument. He was even threatening Russia and Europe's supply of oil. He had lauched missles against Israel. There are tons of bad things that were proven about him and could be used to argue that he had to be overthrown with a military attack.
I didn't question Bush's claim that Saddamm was working on WMD. I fully expected the US to overthrow the country in a matter of weeks, and immediatly find plenty of WMD work and radioactive dumps. I am as suprised as the biggest war hawk that WMD's were not found. But, unlike me, it appears Bush had good information saying that there was a significant chance that the WMD's would not be found. Since I believe he could have easily justified the war without this, I am a rather scared of an administration that would manufacture a lie so casually to get what they want.
"Liars, damn liars, and statisticians" - Chrchill
Most of the issues refuted by these scientists are not understood in a deterministic sense. People have merely collected statistics and used them to predict trends. If you have a prediefined agenda, it's easy to look at statistics favorable to your goal, and ignore those that are not. This is, of course not scientific. This is not an ideal world, however, and someone who calls himself a scientist, may use statistics selectively to "prove" a concept as well. It's somewhat certain that the Bush administration is using these tactics, but that doesn't mean these scientists are not doing the same thing as well to push their political agendas.
Vote for Pedro
Take a look at the "neo-catastrophists" and the resulting Gould's and Eldredge's work on punctuated equilibrium.
Well, he's put food on my family, and he's told me "it's a budget, its got a lot of numbers in it. hehe" so i'll beleive him when he talks about nucular weapons.
http://github.com/gbook/nidb
I personally find his statement that he "took the initiative in creating the internet" to be a grandiose attempt to take political advantage of the internet's popularity... He certainly was a supporter of the idea, but wrote none of the code, developed none of the protocols... he's trying to take credit for the hard work of a lot of scientists and engineers... I personally think that's obnoxious.
But that's not the issue. The parent poster attacked Bush's intelligence... I merely provided an equal-time counterpoint in the form of his previous challenger's record.
I also noticed you didn't refute anything I wrote, except to try to change the subject. If you're a Gore fan, Bush hater, or both, that's fine... but the parent poster attacked Bush's grades when his challenger's were as bad or worse.
As I said... in the interest of fairness.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Apparently the moderators don't know that Yale's business school sucks. Either that or they think anyone can get in to Harvard Business school with a C average.
It's the modus operandi of everyone who watches TV and listens to CNN.
The world isn't just black and white, but why are there only two political parties?
Personally, I think "left" and "right" wing parties are in bed with each other.
You mean the one that was much, much larger in the 1950's? Back when skin cancer was basically unheard-of? That hole?
There's hardly any data in this report. The only graph is Proposed Exhibit 1-8 (Attachemt A) which claims to show the average surface temparature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1000 years. We've only been able to measure temperature with any accuracy for about the past 50 years (not enough of a time span to draw much of a conclusion).
.03% of this. And considering the CO2 emissions from all the naturally occuring forest fires that have been raging every since the dawn of trees, it's difficult to believe humans can have much of an influence here.
If I remember correctly, the volume of Earth's atmosphere is ~ 2-3 x 10^19(m^3) and by current measurements CO2 accounts for less than
Do the calculations. Show me the data.
Henry Kissinger is a Nobel laureate, as is Le Duc Tho.
...which proves nothing of course, but it does give ME pause.
Come to think of it, so is Yasser Arafat.
I've folowed through on their number before. Too many of them dead end in the situations I described. The only legitimate ones are the easy, no-brainer stuff where even someone like Bush wouldn't argue. And their guiding, core ideology is definitely not mainstream. I used to look up to these guys when I was a kid, but when I learned the ropes of real scietific method, I began to see through their flim-flam.
--- Ban humanity.
And... watch the market increase in value as it starts to "build in" the possibility of Bush being replaced.
As Bush sinks in the polls... the market goes up.
It isn't just coincidence.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
Gore has nothing to do with Bush's policies nor the accusations of the scientists from the article. You are trying to play politics by bringing Gore into this instead of discussing the merits of the accusations against the Bush administration. Your "point" is worthless.
And by doing so, he made the pie higher.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
EOM
--- Ban humanity.
Funny, I thought humans got along for millenia without either. Most people get along fine without a car now. I bet you drive a 4-ton clone box (suv) to get to the video game store a mile or two away.
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
WTH!
Accusing the Bush regime of lying to fit their agenda is like going up to a guy wearing a mask, all black, carring a burlap sack of high-priced electronics, whilst running from the po-leece, and saying "Hey! You're a theif!"
What's sad is that they had to bring this to the world's attention. As a general rule of thumb, if the leader of the world's most powerful nation says something is fact, its usually suspect, and its a good idea to check the research. Especially if said leader is a Republican. Or a Democrat.
Oh well. Maybe some enterprising country will stage a coup and 'liberate' us from our dictator if he gets elected again. Sort of an international intervention. "Look America, generally you're an OK country, but this Bush rut you've got yourself stuck in - look, we know you won't think so now, but this is for the best - trust us."
My original message
Bush is stupid
No WMDs ever existed
Bush can't speak correctly
Ashcroft is stripping every liberty we have
Bush is evil
Reagan was stupid
Global warming is happening right now
These scientists are not bias at all.
Before you flame-bait me, ALL of the above WERE responses by people in this thread.
And I get modded down as flame-bait.
BUT ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES WERE MODDED UP TO 4 OR 5. THOSE WERE ACTUAL RESPONSES THAT WERE MODDED UP.
THAT was my point.
You mean back in the 1950's, when they were using tricorders to sample the atmosphere?
Dude, straighten your Star Fleet uniform! No one's going to take you seriously looking like that!
Who should know more about SCO code?
and I'm not trying to be funny.
In the first weeks of the SCO mess, most interested people stepped back and took the issue seriously. Why? Because, being directly involved with the subject, SCO should know best what they're talking about.
As I stated, my previous comment was a generalization and was a response to the summary. The feeling I got from that last line made me think of the title 'expert', and where experts get their qualifications. The fact that the article said "...individuals with ties to the lead industry.", made me suspect FUD. What better way to dismiss the qualifications of those two?
And your response is no better! By your reasoning, research into the effects of lead on human physiology would be a waste of time, since it doesn't take an expert to figure it out. If human physiology is that easy: tell us the cure for cancer. Didn't think so...
I happen to think that the current administration does inappropriate things, this being among them. But I noticed FUD, and reflected on the author's approach.
This is not my sig.
Random example off the top of my head: an American citizen is held without being charged with a crime, without trial or bail, for eight months. Wait, let me guess. It doesn't count, because he's a brown American.
I think that those ginormous tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy may have had some effect on the debt. Just maybe. That, and the $100bn+ adventure in Iraq.
*cough* Abstinence-only education *cough*. When they require teaching abstinence, and disallow teaching anything else, that makes it 'abstinence-only'. Get it?
If you're going to talk smack, can you at least talk the kind of smack that can't be refuted with five minutes of Googling?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Oh, yeah. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were dealt with via an exchange program... WITH HELL!!
Seriously, your memory chews balls if you can't think of the US ever executing spies. They are, more often than not, imprisoned for extensive terms, not sent home in exchange for other spies.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Justin, think.
Locating and tracking the target warhead is the hard part.
How do you tell what is a decoy and what isn't? It is a very hard problem.
Coast-phase warhead intercept is not a good investment of SDI money. If you want to blow money on SDI, blow it on boost phase interception/shootdown. It's much harder to build decoy rockets.
Anyone but Bush in 2004
1) This is beside the point. Vetos have a very obvious effect on how bills are shaped by Congress. While in theory, congress has complete control, quite a bit of policy also comes out of the White House. In theory, Bush only presides over decisions made by Congress. In reality, Bush has produced quite a bit of policy, including promoting the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If you've been paying attention, in the real world, the president is creating policy, and Congress is rubber stamping it. Labeling Clinton and Reagan
:), yeah, that's great. A big gravy train for drug companies, that's what we need, more gravy for the rich, they aren't fat enough yet. Bush makes the excuse that the drug companies need the money for research, but if you've been paying attention, I already talked about how the government pays for most drug research through University NIH grants. So, people like my girlfriend, who is an MD/Phd, get paid less than 30K a year to do research on diseases, and they write papers, and then when the research actually p
2) Really? Is trashing the environment good long term business strategy? In the short run, you are right, environmentalism is more liberal than complete laissez faire. In the long term, it's centrist at the most, if not conservative. Think about it, keeping the planet from being trashed is helpful to both business/conservative/wealthy people as it is the poor, at least in the long term. Environmental protections are centrist (arguably conservative) idea when viewed rationally and for the long term.
It's kind of like debating strategy over the war on Iraq. Only "extreme" liberals questioned the war before it happened. Most "liberals" merely questioned the strategy, not the morality of it. This should tell you how conservative things really are. A truly liberal viewpoint would have said we shouldn't go to war at all, but, we really don't have much of that in the democratic party.
In the case of environmental regulation, a truly liberal viewpoint would conclude that since corporations can't keep themselves from trashing the environment, that they should be destroyed, and that we need to come up with other institutional structures for organizing society. A moderately right of center viewpoint says, "Ok, corporations are trashing the environment, but that's not an argument against them, because everyone knows that corporations are wonderful, top down, authoritarian regimes that we want and need. So, lets discuss whether or not we should actually dare to tell them whether or not they can polute, not whether or not their behavior is evidence that they should be abolished." The people that you call "liberals" aren't really proposing much, just that we admit that maybe dumping a bunch of shit into the atmosphere might be bad for the environment. The fact that this kind of straightforward thinking is "liberal" in your eyes gives us insight into how you view the world.
3) These are known as unfunded mandates. This is where you need to separate rhetoric from reality. Bush talks like a Centrist, but walks like an ultra-conservative. Many of his more "liberal" ideas are pork barrel spending at it's worst, and are simply packaged as an idea that the Democrats might have. So, of the money that is set aside for the "prescription drug benefit", half of that 400 billion is money that's just given to drug companies. Nothing is expected in return, no strings attached. It's just free money that they are given. The other half is used to actually purchase drugs from those companies. But there's more, the drug companies are allowed to ask for as much money as they want for their products. In other words, of the other half, that is actually going to be used for prescription drugs, Bush said that Medicare is not allowed to bargain for lower prices on those drugs, but has to pay the price that drug companies set. Insurance companies can bargain but apparently medicare can't under Bush's new program. So basically, it's a big hand off of $$$$$$$
So you can complain about Bush when your alternative was no better? That's like the people who voted for Clinton over Dole making a big deal about military service now.
SDI was billed as an anti-missile system. As an anti-missile system, it failed.
Had SDI been a giant metal cock with which to bitch-slap the Russkies, and had that ended the Cold War, then yeah, I think you could say SDI worked. However, SDI was not billed as a giant metal cock.
SDI, in and of itself, did not work. It was a failed boondoggle. Scaring the Russians does not mean that SDI "worked".
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Been in the field for a few years, worked at a national lab, major university...and I can tell you there is no such thing as an unbiased scientist. We don't actually cook the books, but most researchers have an preconceived notion of what their results should be, and will interpret their data in a way that backs up that desire. Nobody ever talks about it and even fewer will acknowledge it, but it's there, which is why I look at all this squabbling between left-leaning and right-leaning scientists to be pure political bullshit; especially since most scientists are of a rather liberal bent and despise Bush - $20 says if gov't scientists were all enviro-friendly, this lot would be bitching about the myth of global warming.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
I disagree. In an election year, with America as divided as ever, with all the political innuendo about corruption that's getting airtime lately, how can you release something like this and NOT make it political?
Err... I live in the United States, and I have noticed over the course of my lifetime that every year is an election year. It's just that the election of the US President happens every 4 years. Elections for other government positions generally occur at different, well-defined intervals (a notable exception to the "well-defined interval" rule being the state of California).
In light of this, how (in the United States of America) can one be said to do something in anything other than an election year? Every statement must therefore be considered political.
"a part of the ConsumerFreedom.com network,
is committed to providing detailed and up-to-date
information on where anti-consumer organizations
and activists get their money."
give me a break! no bias there huh?
You know you can send them money right? "During the Bush recession..." When did the recession begin? Oh nevermind, I wouldn't want to bother you with fact like the economy was in a downturn when Clinton left office. And there was the little thing that happened on 9/11 that changed everything. "Read my lips, Tax rises are inevitable." How long is that sustainable? Are you a communist? Sounds like your plan will get us there eventually.
Indeed. Since my creationist friends are quite intelligent, and very good in the fields of biology, physics, and mathematics, I give them the benefit of the doubt.
Well said! I wish I had mod-points.
30-45 is not young when you consider that life expectancy was once much lower than it is today. Google it for yourself. Here is one blurb that puts the life expectancy in the 1800s at ~30
And have ever looked at laborer fashions from the 1700s? I haven't but, I suspect the women at least weren't showing much back. You can disregard the fashions worn by the nobles, because they stayed out of the sun (being tanned was considered coarse).
The final piece of information you aren't considering is the fact that most people native to regions with lots of sun have darker skin. This adaptation protects their skin from the damage caused by UV (incidently, it also makes it harder for them to produce the vitamin D they need from sunlight, but that's another story.) My ancestors were all from northern Europe, but I grew up in Arizona and live in southern California. I am not adapted for my current environment: I'm adapted for a place where the sun barely shines half of the year!
The real trouble started when us fair-skinned northern European types started moving to the sunnier areas, stripping down to our skivvies, and hanging out at the beach.
I never said I had all of the answers. But you don't appear to have any facts.
or at least if you are, please tell me none of your work has ever passed peer review.
Facts do not cease to exist because they are ignored. - Aldous Huxley
We should just blindly follow people whose existence relies almost completely on my tax dollars. It's not in their best interest to raise taxes and increase the size of government at all. Riiiiiiight...
Bush is attempting to appeal to the pointy headed voters out there on things like stem cell research, and to monied interests on lead standards. At least Gore *appears* engaged. This is one area where being a policy wonk is a good thing. Bush doesn't appearto rely on logic, but to lead with hisemotions and experience.If he hasn't experienced something personally, it doesn't appear to exist for him.
that the basic argument is that you feel that because no WMD's were found, when the pretense given for going to war was that they existed.. that the pretense of the war was fabricated to justify going to war.
;)
IOW, nobody likes being lied to, and nobody likes going to war in general, but especially if they were drug into it under false pretenses.
thats perfectly understandable... i think i'd feel the same way.
the difference is that i fundamentally trust the bush administration (as much as i trust any politician, which is a derived class of "Person", which i also do not trust, but "Politician" has a special "do not trust" modifier
that said, i was really surprised that no significnat WMD parts have been found. I mean, 10+ years of evidence points to existance of such.. evidence presented by both parties, multiple administrations, even non-US interests. Everyone thought he had them.
So, in effect, what that means is that if WMD are never found (and assuming that means they didn't exist), then i was wrong, despite all the indicators that wmd should have been found..
isn't is possible that bush/powell are just as surprised as anybody else ?
in which case, the objection based on them being intentionally misleading doesn't really fly ?
I donno. I like to assume that people are wrong more often than they're lying. Call me gullible. I see a few possibilities.
1) there are/were WMDs but none were found
(cant be mad at bush for this)
2) there are/were NO wmds but everyone thought there was (cant be mad at bush for this, either)
3) there were NOT wmds, despite all the research to the contrary, and somehow bush and only bush knew this, and managed to convince the american people, the UN, The UK, and pretty much everyone, that there were.
(ok, you can be mad about that)
weighing the liklihood of all options, i'd say its between #1 and #2.
remember, Bush wasn't the first person to say there was a WMD problem in iraq. Clinton actually said something similar, and had plans to go do something about it but they never materialized. That lends further credibility to #1.
My opinions are my own, and do not necessarily represent those of my employer.
Yes, Velikovsky was sorta right about something wasn't he?
See, I'm an equal opportunity offender.
WWJD? JWRTFA!
No, not really. The problem with intercepting an ICBM is above all one of decoys. The radar and IR sensors see an incomning cloud of 100 identical shiny, round objects. One of them contains a warhead. Which do you hit? Given that it's MUCH easier to build a decoy than an interceptor, that is a game that you can't win (assuming equal resources going in - which against the Russkies is a reasonable bet).
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Explain to me how a union of like minded americans puting their political will into a collaborative action is as bad (or even on the same scale!) as big corporations manipulating the political system for their own gain?
http://webexhibits.org/bush/
to change the rules every 4 years to fit his agenda. Gore was the only alternative and to pretend that he has nothing to do with anything is just silly. You can't say "your guy got bad grades" when the man you supported faired no better in school. If Gore's grades didn't matter back in 2000 when you voted for him why should Bush's matter to anyone now?
How many times have you seen a study come out that says eating chocolate and nothing but chocolate is bad for you or some other such crap? How much of my tax dollars are spent each your to study the burps of cows and other nonsense? I have no problem with cancer research or alternative energy research and things of that nature but you and I both know that there is a lot of money mis-spent in the science community.
The argument that Mr. Hussein gassed his own people is commonly used as justification for cluster-bombing innocent children in Baghdad. The United States of America provided the Iraqi government with numerous chemical and biological weapons during the buildup of hostilities with Iran. Sorry, but we didn't seem to mind it much when it served our political needs, so why are people so adamant about bringing it up now? This was 20 years ago, when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Hussein and offering him our support. I am willing to bet that the information we had was receipts for stuff we sold his ass over the last 20 years...by the guys who openly supported selling it to him. That's why they freaked, and were one-upped by their own puppet, or perhaps the scientists and leaders behind him. Afghanistan: Mission NOT Accomplished. Iraq: Mission NOT Accomplished. Unless the mission was to bomb the living shit out of civilians with devastating and even radioactive weapons, then give a ton of corporate contracts to companies that have screwed with the region for decades now and need new sources of revenue...
man rtfm
can't even keep the fucking discussion on-topic. Gore is OFF TOPIC to the entire article thread, yes some Bush apologist wanted to take the heat off of the Whitehouse so the old spectre of Gore was invoked for no reason. Can't you conservative wannabes even keep focus on the article topic?
How are Bush's grades in college on topic? If you're going to attack someone for being off topic maybe you should go back to the lib that thinks that Bush's grades are in anyway relevant to this discussion.
No, not really. The problem with intercepting an ICBM is above all one of decoys. The radar and IR sensors see an incomning cloud of 100 identical shiny, round objects. One of them contains a warhead. Which do you hit?
Why, all of them, of course. Definitely the biggest hurdle.
Given that it's MUCH easier to build a decoy than an interceptor, that is a game that you can't win (assuming equal resources going in - which against the Russkies is a reasonable bet).
ROFLMAO! The US and Russia have equal resources? Man, what are you smoking? The US has a GDP of $10.45 trillion, Russia's is only $1.4 trillion. That's almost an order of magnitude in difference. Do you honestly think Russia can build enough decoy ICBMs to counter the number of interceptors we could assemble?
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The sun.
I remember a while ago here in Alberta Premier Klein made a very interesting quote about global warming where he joked that the end of the ice age was due to dinosaur farts. This made me realize that Klein, and probably a lot of other politicians, not only doesn't believe in science but doesn't even respect it. They'll quote studies when it suits them and claim they have done scientific research but at the end of the day I don't believe science has the slightest baring on their decisions. Therefore it's not surprising that politicians are playing funny with the numbers, after all it's just dinosaur farts.
I stole this Sig
He's the President, not a scientist. How about Jimmy Carter? He was real smart, but did that make a good President?
I plan on voting for President Bush because I believe unborn, half born, and seriously ill people should have the right to live.
The Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God. He has saved me from my sin, and given me new life. I praise him.
If you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you'll be saved.
Let the Lord be magnified.
My Web Site
Interesting. Today's Washington Post is recommending D.C. residents flush their taps for 10 minutes to help reduce exposure to lead. Missed the opportunity to blame it on Bush, however.
Story
No.
Before the heavy industry, there were light-colored moths and dark-colored moths.
After the heavy industry, there were still light and dark colored moths.
No change of species took place. All that happened was that the populations of two different colors of the same moths had changed.
Drinking cow's milk is only bad if you stop and start again. You loose the enzyme you need to digest the protiens properly.
You might be confusing 'need' with a resource issue. Why spend resources on a uneeded defense? Also think about black body radiation (its not a pun) if you are black you loose heat faster through radiation. Granted in sun you can absorb it quicker but in a cold wet hovel the sun isn't really an issue.
I guess it all just depends on your definition of "is" and "grades" and "muddy".
Today, the Bush administration said in a press release that 20 important US scientists had been arrested for terrorism charges under the Patriot Act
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
The left-wing influence on science is very troubling. It is the left-wing fundamentalist influence on the administration that troubles the UCS. However, the general left-wing environment scare, junk science, anti-business, and anti-humanity rhetoric should be far more troubling to scientists and the public. Other posters here have described those more troubling UCS biases on science.
The problem is that we are not teaching science (or anything else) very well in our schools. If we taught science (and math, economics, and everything else) properly the public would be able to see through all the left-wing (religious and socialist) rhetoric.
Our right wing administration has liberated 50 million people from left-wing fundamentalism and fascism in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are constructing a model of freedom and democracy that is already having a large positive influence on the rest of the left-wing middle-east and other totalitarian dictatorships.
There was no evidence that Saddam had disarmed Iraq of WMD's, he simply won the game of hide-and-seed with the UN and US. The cease-fire and UN resolutions were not about hide-and-seek.
It has been found that the right-wing administration has trampled on 0 peoples civil liberties via the PATRIOT act. Compare this to 100+ millions killed last century by left-wing regimes.
There is no constitutional separation of church and state. Christians (both left and right) are fighting the judges who are trying to abolish the free expression of religion on public property.
Abstinence just needs to be taught properly. The more sex you have outside of marriage, on average, the less time you will spend in marriage. Abstinence is actually a long-term sex-maximizing strategy.
The BLS household survey shows over a 1.5M employment increase in 2003, and 496K increase in January. The lagging payroll job stats only show that big corporations are not taking over everything.
The previous grid-locked out-of control president and congress spent the tech bubble proceeds buying bonds (surplus), while neglecting the common defense and national infrastructure. We paid heavily for this grid-lock. Hopefully, this won't happen again.
since you've obviously failed to make any sort of point whatsoever in this thread, let's throw in a lame Clinton jab! Might as well since you have nothing of value to say.
For the record, Bush, Gore, and Clinton can all rot in hell, just so you don't think it's some "leftist" you are talking to.
On The laws of thermodynamics:
You are wrong. A man actually won a nobel prize for proving you wrong.
While humans are highly ordered and certainly complex, that in and of istself in not a universal decrease in entropy. It is a LOCAL decrease. Also, we are very efficent at creating entropy (which some might consider bad). We spin the whole earth up by moving water to the northern hemisphere with our dams. We slow it down by contributing ever so slightly to global warming causing water from the polar caps to raise sea levels in the tropics. We are some crazy crazy bastards. And we've got nuclear weapons. And man you want to talk about entropy, those fuckers create the hell out of it.
Also, the universe was origianlly very simple. Almost perfectly smooth, very hot with a very uniform density and temperature. Now it's very "bumpy." Very very cold, very very hot, very very empty and some places are pretty dense too. Of the 5000 and change subatomic spaces in the universe each year that do get as hot and dense as the universe once was, a pretty impressive fraction of them are on our humble little rock. One might even say entropy is the change in the journey from one simply described state to one of a vast multitude of complicated states.
Creationism is a crutch for the faithless faithfull. It never fails to surprise me how small people demand that their God be. What's really sad about that isn't that people like you are ignorant, it's that you're ignorant because you're cowards. You need some idol to serve as a compass to your faith, which completely misses the point. It's just so pathetic.
I keep getting called a conservative when the fact is I'm a libertarian. Both parties want to take something from me. The Dems want my guns and the Reps want my porn. Thing is my guns are more important to me so who you think I'm going to vote for until there's a viable alternative? I actually wouldn't mind if Edwards was the Dem candidate because I might have to give him a hard look. I voted for Bush but I have no problem criticizing him for many of the things he's done (immigration policy and out of control spending) but I want the playing field to be somewhat level in these debates. If grades matter to you then fine, but if you say they matter one year and don't the next I'm going to call you out on it. Same with military service and integrity. If you say Bush has no integrity and he's not fit to lead then you better have said that when Clinton was in office. I'm tired of all these ideologues and I honestly get a kick out of baiting them because it's just soooo easy.
Thanks for playing!
And the winner is...
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
(via hyperdictionary.com)
1) (n) a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation
2) (n) (fabric cut)
3) (adj) (referring to a fabric cut)
4) (v) to cause to be biased
5) (v) to influence an outcome in an unfair way (e.g., "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"
I intended definition 1 (referring to the UCS) - I didn't intend to imply an inability to objectively discuss a topic, but perhaps an inhibition. "Preconceived viewpoint" would perhaps have been a better expression for my intended meaning of bias.
Even though the UCS (may) have an ideological bias (as in def. 1), that does not render their findings incorrect (they may be incomplete but not necessarily wrong). I could also be incorrect - they might not be biased as in 1) - they may be able to provide both complete and objective discussion on GWB's use of science.
Did you have any other issues with what I wrote (or did I not address your primary issue)?
You're talking to the wrong guy. Even though I didn't start this thread, I will not apologize for pointing out the obvious double standard.
You're quite right though... Bush's intelligence has nothing to do with the accusations of the scientists in the article. Bush is not a scientist, doesn't pretend to be, and his science intellect is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. What recent president, excepting Carter, has had any serious science background? Better yet, can you show me a recent president who made his own scientific policy decisions without leaning heavily on advisers?
Bush's intellect is largely irrelevant, just as Gore's is irrelevant... they're just irrelevant for different reasons. Gore's IQ is irrelevant because he's not in office, and Bush's IQ is irrelevant because, like most presidents, he lacks scientific expertise/credentials, realizes it, and relies on advisers. Different reasons, same irrelevance on the science intellect point.
I'm not saying Bush isn't responsible for policy... He most definitely is, but that's not how this thread started. You can make a very strong argument that president Bush, as the man in the catbird seat, is ultimately responsible for all policy decisions... but that's different from deriding his intellect. He may have received bad counsel, but accepting counsel from the wrong people makes you a poor judge of character, not a moron. If he's guilty of anything, he's guilty of taking bad advice, and that's fairly common (ever go with a recommendation that turned out to be wrong? If so, then you're as dumb as Bush... welcome to the club)
You are trying to play politics by bringing Gore into this instead of discussing the merits of the accusations against the Bush administration.
No... I'm using Gore as a convenient foil to rebut an irrelevant point.
Worthless indeed... do try to direct your flames more appropriately in the future, AC.
Even if a man chops off your hand with a sword, you still have two nice, sharp bones to stick in his eyes.
Your moth example just shows that variation in distribution of existing genetic material. It doesn't show any evolution at all.
The biston betularia must be the most repeated frauduleus claim in biology text books I suppose. For more, read "Piltdown Moth". Anyone taking a course in the philosophy of science will have come accross this as a classic example.
If I had a sig, I would put it here.
See, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.
Why? Because when someone is clearly WRONG, they'll be damned if they let them pretend that they're right. And they especially hate it when psuedo-scientists try to use their profession.
Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized. There were a lot of reasons for Vatican II, but I'd argue that the Church's losing battle against the forces of reason was the major one. Darwin? They're still fighting tooth and nail. States can pass laws allowing "creation science" but they soon find they're the butt of ridicule and have acquired a reputation for ignorance. If Junior has any brains at all (which is debatable) he'll quietly start leaving the science to the scientists... and if he doesn't he'll soon find his intelligence will be a rather large issue.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
All right. I can see how people outside the lead industry can be experts in the field, but that doesn't make them unbiased.
I find it impossible to have any opinion or report produced by a person to be unbiased. There are numerous reasons that a person can be labeled biased without financial motive.
During the researcher's tenure in developing their expertise, they would come to lean one way or another on various issues.
I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps those outside the industry have an axe to grinde because they were never let in. Or maybe they believe that lead is the root cause for all of society's ills. Or maybe they can profit by replacing lead in various products. These people would not be from the lead industry, but would have expertise in the field and would be unquestionably biased.
Assuming that no opinion could be unbiased, the best a manager could do is hear from 'both' sides.
Having people that were involved with various industries is benefitial in various panels. Perhaps not for the CDC, but if everyone in such a panel has the same opinion, then what's the point of having a panel?
The trend towards homogeneous panels/councils/etc in administrations is the real problem. Not that some individuals may be lobbyists, but that they are from the same lobby.
This is not my sig.
But SDI did work. The threat of the program going ahead was part of what drove the USSR into effective bankruptcy. It may have worked even sooner if more people played along with the bluff.
I, for one, as a scientist and an American, am proud to admit that that campaign of disinformation worked at making the world a better place.
All I can tell is that threads like this really make me wish I could castrate people through the internet with my mind.
the early test results to date, including the latest flight intercept test last Saturday, do not yet justify a Bush administration decision to deploy an operational system in Alaska
and concludes
both the Pentagon's propaganda and the media coverage wrongly celebrated the July 14 shoot-down without explaining how distant from reality the conditions of that test were -- in order to advance the political aims of the White House.
Is that the best link you have?
Not decoy ICBM's. Balloon decoys. And hell yes. You can put ~100 of them on each booster because they are little more than balls of mylar. Look, it's sooo much easier to build a mylar baloon than an anti-missle interceptor that a few orders of magnitude in GDP just doesn't fscking matter. You may feel superior to the Russkies, but fact is that they have enough resources to build enough ICBM's that the U.S. simply COULD NOT defend against them. It's really that simple. And getting back to the original point, back in the 80's before the Soviets collapsed, they definitely had the resources to build an ICBM force that we could not defend against. No resonable person - even current SDI advocates - talks about defending against 1000+ incoming ICBMs, decoys or no decoys. All the current system is supposed to do is protect against North Korea and their 2 ICBM's. (In actuality the idea is to force the Chinese to spend real $$$ on more ICBMS so we can spend them into the ground the way we did the Soviets; those cheap bastards have been getting away with less than 100 ICBM's until now! Flawed logic for various reason we can go into later.)
And I haven't even started talking about counter-countermeasures other than decoys. You've got maneuvering warheads and buses, you've got chaff & jammers, you could set off a few nukes in space (completely wiping out any radar visibility for hours on end), you could have depressed-trajectory SLBM launches against the missle-defence sites, or you can have fast-boost ICBM's where the intercept time is very short.
Or you could just smuggle the damned things into downtown NY, LA and DC and be done with it, missile defence or no missle defence.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Gore got a 1355, Bush got a 1206. Actually i'm surprised Bush did that well. And btw, Tyro, grades don't indicate how much one has learned. One thing i've come to realize in school is that the desire to actually learn hurts you more than helps you. Teachers like you to stick with their crappy pdf note files, and just know the uninsightful factoids they tell you. Actually grasping concepts seems of little importance to shitty college progs, which most are. http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.htm l
I guess I must concede that Bush may be more of an asshole than he is a dumbass, but it is still close.
~mantis
You are kidding, right?
There is this saying: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.
Remember the last time some jackass in charge of a superpower ignored all of his domestic problems and insisted on building his military at all costs?
I'll give you a hint... they were in Afganistan.
They also believed that they did not need allies in the international community... that they could stand alone.
Sound familiar? That is history repeating itself.
Oh, those advances... we are still driving big ass cars that get less than 30 mpg. Sucking bad air. Dying of heart disease. Can't find good drinking water. And the food we eat is killing us.
And... let's not even talk about the fact that some baseball player is getting paid more than 2500 public school teachers do... combined.
Yeah... we've come a long way.
--Phillip
Can you say BIRTH TAX
It's no suprise that michael is posting this. Michael is to technoblogging what Jerry Springer is to reality. As other posters have pointed out, UCS is not a scientific group - they're a political activist group. This piece by the Centers for Policy Analysis (a group which is unabashed about its political aims) gives some examples of how UCS promotes junk science when necessary to promote idealogical ends.
No, I don't expect michael to know what he's talking about. He's not a nerd, he's just a political hack. I just wish Slashdot's Commanders in Cheif would fire his ass so we can get news that isn't tainted by his petty wingnut politics.
Does it matter that we gave them to him?
Does it matter that we supplied telemtry for the chemical weapons attacks on the Shites?
Does it matter that Bush swore that he was not interested in Naion building.
A better analogy might be this. Say your a dirty cop, you hand a bag of coke and a gun to a bully and say, I want you to go and shoot this other criminal and plant the coke on him. Then later you see you buddy run into a dark ally, you pursue him, shoot him and take the coke.
You are correct sir.
Unfortunately... THIS WASN'T REGAN'S PLAN, you fucking AC dumbass.
Not decoy ICBM's. Balloon decoys. And hell yes. You can put ~100 of them on each booster because they are little more than balls of mylar.
Those only work once the warheads have seperated from the launch vehicle. The solution? Target the launch vehicle *before* the warheads deploy.
Look, no defense system is perfect, and noone ever claimed missile defense is a panacea. But it's better than sitting around, doing nothing to protect ourselves. Just like the best lock will only slow down the best thief, not stop him, so too will the best defensive system only reduce the amount of damage done by the best offensive system. The goal is to increase our country's chance of survival. Unfortunately, there's no way to guarantee it.
God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
The quotes have been arranged
for aesthetic reasons only
by Washington Post writer Richard Thompson.
MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the internet
become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being
and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
Does it matter that we gave them to him?
1. Nope. No matter where he got the weapons, he was ordered to disarm and refused.
2. We didn't. The bulk of Saddam's chemical materials came from Russia, and the bulk of his nuclear research program came from France.
Does it matter that we supplied telemtry for the chemical weapons attacks on the Shites?
The chemical attacks on the Kurds (not the Shiites) were via artillery and mortar, which are unguided weapons. No "telemtry" was involved, so I don't know what you're talking about here.
Does it matter that Bush swore that he was not interested in Naion building.
Prove it.
Say your a dirty cop, you hand a bag of coke and a gun to a bully and say, I want you to go and shoot this other criminal and plant the coke on him. Then later you see you buddy run into a dark ally, you pursue him, shoot him and take the coke.
Boy. Way to be completely disconnected from reality.
This is the guy he wants to compare himself to?
Shop as usual. And avoid panic buying.
You don't have any fucking clue how much money the asshole makes. He says 90, and he is the most reliable source for that information in the context of this discussion. It's certainly a lot easier to believe his assessment of his own income than your infantile, clumsy rebuttal, "You do not make 90k".
I can't belive I'm actually seeing this shit, even on the interweb. A statement that you doubted his word regarding his income would have been meaningless, immature, and impolite. I can't find a strong enough adjective to describe the absolute lack of civility shown by your outright denial of his statement.
I can type 60 words per minute. This may or may not be a true statement, but in either case, telling me that I can't makes you look like the liar.
Don't take it personally; you're just a worthless shitbiscuit without a single redemptive quality.
Recommendations:
Don't use "First off". Don't begin a sentence with a numeral. And if something "goes without saying", it is better left unsaid. Also, if you insist on being an asshole, you could at least be an entertaining one.
This thread is speaks alot about global warming, and so does your SUV comment. But it is not the only issue with our wastefull, Consumer-driven industrial, oil-powered society.
Our stupidity is driving plants and animals into extinction. We are producting chemicals that the planet has never seen -- and its having dire consequences. We are producting ecosystem-overwhelming levels of things of all sorts, from anti-biotics in women's milk, hormones in cow's milk lowering the age of women's puberty, teflon showing up in humans, etc etc etc. We are conducting an experiment ON OURSELVES. We have no idea the lasting consequences of all this.
We are right to be concerned with Global Warming, but friends, dammit, its just a symptom of a much bigger problem.
(C) Kaki Sain, 2011. By reading this, you have illegally copied my property to your brain.
Does this mean we should believe the Vatican about the existence of God? Since they've studied morality the longest, shouldn't they be the leading moral authority? Shouldn't our government consult with them about the morality of laws? - I mean, they've been studying it the longest.*
I happen to know of a great many "scientific" thinkers who go to great lengths to reject the morality espoused by the Catholic Church. It would seem that 2000 years of study is not enough to come to any definite conclusions regarding morality, but science can understand global warming completely after less than 200 years.
Just a thought. Maybe if people sat down and thought about it, they'd realize just how much we don't know about the world around us.
* - yes, I know there are older religions, but most can identify with Catholicism. Don't get upset...
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
I hear that lowest common denomonator argument quite a bit. TV is the lowest common denomenator, not the people watching it. You can't find people less informed and more misled than the majority of newscasters. By the time someone makes it to broadcast TV, they've been trained about what's news and what isn't. They are used to being censored. That's their job, to brainwash everyone else. It's not about attracting viewers, it's about shaping the way people think.
That's why here in the US, CBS wouldn't run an ad by moveon during the Super Bowl (an American football championship that's one of the most widely watched events in the US). Their stance was that they didn't want to bring politics to the event. Of course, this is corporate censorship, not state censorship, so there's no issue there. If they would turn down advertiser money (which is their sole source of income) to avoid informing people of the issues, what makes you think they wouldn't censor their own televisions shows?
You are absolutely correct, and I hope no one took my post as trying to claim otherwise. This is indeed an example of microevolution. It does NOT indicate a change of species, as there were already variations across the species present. I thought by saying "primarily light colored" I was clear enough that there were already light-colored moths present before the massive soot-generation started. This is how microevolution works. Bacteria evolve resistance by this mechanism-- all the ones that aren't resistant die. The remainder breed, and you get high percentage of resistant bacteria. All that has changed is the proportion of resistant vs. nonresistant bacteria in the population-- both were present beforehand, just in different quantities.
This is not an example of a new species being created via evolution. That is exactly the type of evolution that is a theory, and will remain a theory until it is either superseded, disproven, or actually witnessed.
And even witnessing the evolution of a new species within our lifetimes will NOT put the creation part of the whole thing to bed. We can't ever prove things that happened when we weren't there-- best guesses on present-day evidence and religious explanations are the closest we will get. We'll need time machines before we have factual answers to that one.
Easier said than done; assuming we're talking about a Russian ICBM field the only way to get close enough is to be in orbit (you need to be within a few hundred km, and even then you only have 15-30 seconds decision time). This means literally thousands of interceptor satellites in low-Earth orbit (laser or kinetic warheads - it doesn't make much difference). That's pretty challenging, as these are not small satellites either. For comparison the GPS network is 24 sats; given that satellites in low-earth orbit re-enter fairly regularly (residual atmospheric drag), we'd be talking about lofting something like the equivalent of the entire GPS network every month.
And that's assuming you could actually build a laser or interceptor that would work reliably - and that's by no means a given.
And that's assuming the opponent didn't start his attack by wiping out all the interceptor satellites that are in range of the launch field (they all have to be in orbit, and will thus be known and tracked). Remember, "buying the defences", especially when you have the element of surprise, is a technique that usually improves the chances of the offence greatly.
Look, no defense system is perfect, and noone ever claimed missile defense is a panacea. But it's better than sitting around, doing nothing to protect ourselves.
Didn't Reagan make exactly that claim? Anyway, your argument sets up a false dichotomy. Would the required 5% of GDP be better spent doing something else? Maybe the money should be used in anti-smuggling and border security ops? Or maybe, just maybe, we could stop trying to fsck over the rest of the world so maybe, just maybe, they'd be less inclined to lob ICBM's our way...
Just like the best lock will only slow down the best thief, not stop him, so too will the best defensive system only reduce the amount of damage done by the best offensive system. The goal is to increase our country's chance of survival
When the Soviets have enough nukes to personally provide a few kiltons to every man, woman and child in the U.S., it really doesn't matter if we could knock down 10, 50 or even 500 warheads. With 10,000 ICBM warheads (MIRV's, remember) and 30,000 tactical ones, the acceptable leakage rate has to be so rediculously small that it's surely wasted effort. I've seen professional assessments showing that 20-100 hits would be more than sufficient to destroy the U.S. as a national entity, killing 30 million people in the process.
You are thinking like a military guy, where even a defence that is 50% effective is worthwhile because it forces the enemy to double his effort. But when it comes to strategic nuclear war, the difference between 2 and 4 warheads/aimpoint is pretty immaterial.
Human genome = 3 billion base pairs = 6 GBit. Windows + Office = 20 Gbit. Which is more impressive?
Sorry, but the fact that they are creationists implies that they are not "quite intelligent, and very good in the fields of biology, physics, and mathematics". So, feel free to start ignoring their opinions.
I was responding to the science in his post, not the politics.
The system is clearly not ready, however the concept has been proven - it *CAN* work. We've got the hard part figured out.
Cheers,
Justin
Nope, he actually said "I'm a War President. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. " See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ for a transcript. Be afraid. Be very afraid.
Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.
what a f*c@$ng pile of bullshit!
show every sign of increasing? like what, they grow themselves? show me that coal mine which magically fills itself back to full because i have to see it.
or maybe i got the wrong information and the earth actually is flat so its surface is infinite. that way, we can always go forward and discover ever more coal deposits and will do so forever?
Fight Frist Psoting!
Browse Slashdot with 'Newest First'!
Oh come on, you're just upset because your sacred cow, the 'united scientists' with their 'consensus' had their balloon punctured and were proven wrong. You can't really be serious that you buy this alarmist propaganda they peddle.
SDI has knocked down at least two more missiles than your 'scientists' have. Moreover, the supposed 'rigging' of the test is a matter of perspective - making contact with an item traveling at 10k mph is difficult enough. Altering the parameters to fit technological limitations I can deal with.
In regards ignorance, I read the book back at the time (in the 80's) and its basic premise was as follows:
While both of the above points are correct in some sense, they are inapplicable to either the situation then or the situation today. The first was begging the question, "Well, if it isn't possible today, research and development are necessary, no?". Duh. These 'scientists' decided to try to gainsay it EVER being possible, which is a silly thing to do with technology.
The second point is true enough but a poor argument: a similar argument could be made about other weapons systems. Take a tank: well, armor piercing rounds from antitank weaponry can always be made to pierce any thickness of armor, through various technologies such as hollow charges and sabot rounds, or just making the gun bigger. Should armor be dispensed with, then?
The answer is resoundingly no, because an armorless tank is prey to small arms fire and perhaps even prosaic things like Molotov cocktails. A balance is struck between armor thickness and desired survivability and transportability. This is instructive, because the purpose of SDI was never to kill every incoming missile, and the current National Missile Defense program is not geared towards that either.
The purpose of SDI was to create a situation where a 'ragged' first strike would result. Ragged in the sense that not every missile would hit the target. This would increase the risk of said first strike, therefore strengthening deterrence. I agree with the aforementioned book inasmuch as that this would have provoked a new arms race when the system became operational. That was the point. This arms race would bankrupt the Soviet Union, which was already teetering on the edge of same. Victory in the Cold War was very much as a result of the _threat_ of SDI.
The current NMD program is intended to provide defense against a 'Scud' situation ala Saddam in 1991, or a North Korean ICBM. It is intended to knock down a small number of missiles. It would have no effect on a French or Russian or Chinese nuclear attack, except inasmuch as it would cause, once again, a 'ragged' first strike that would not assure the launching nation of achieving the expected results, thereby once again strengthening deterrence. It will not be immune to countermeasures and it can be spoofed. Who cares. It raises the barrier of entry to successfully launch a nuclear strike on the US. It wasn't intended to be a perfect shield. Moreover, the NMD is small enough that it's unlikely to provoke an arms race, as the Russians or Chinese can still flood the system with RVs that would make the quantity of destroyed vehicles immaterial.
Perhaps these 'concerned scientists' should invent a rubber band gun to fire copies of "The Fallacy of Star Wars: Why Space Weapons Can't Protect Us" at incoming ICBMs. I'm sure with all their collective smarts they'll have it working in no time, unlike the idiots in the military who think NMD or SDI had some promise. Right?
This organization, these 'concerne
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
As a scientist, I hear you my man -- you're preaching to the choir. But this situation is obviously mired in politics for the simple fact that it attacks the Bush administration. To convince non-science minded individuals the "truth" behind this matter is as difficult as convincing Christians that Jesus was not Christ. Now on the other hand, putting blind trust on what these scientists say is, let's face it, also against human nature -- heck, it's against the scientific process (i.e. the process of science is to question the observed phenomenon). So even if it is 20 Nobel laureates, it doesn't mean squat to the vast majority of the voting population -- these are the only people who matter to Bush. Put it this way you can change what you said:
if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?
to what Catholics believe:
if you can't count on 20 Cardinals to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of Catholicism in our society, who on earth can you trust?
Those who aren't Catholics will think otherwise. Maybe that's not that great of an example, but you get my point, I hope. And so those who aren't scientists -- even some scientists themselves! -- will think otherwise of the UCS' report.
Linux at home
What a brave and noble sacrifice. Instead of hiding behind a "coward cloak", we know your true identity, which is that you are.. um.. "nightsweat". So if we want to hold you accountable for your words, all we have to do is ..e rrr... however it is you find someone knowing only that they are probably (but not necessarily) in the united states and that they went by the handle "nightsweat" with no contact information at one point on a website.
"Rambo is a terrorist for helping those terrorists"
Are you kidding me? they would have had their ass kicked just for saying that shit. It strange now how people don't hesitate to call the afghanis "terrorists" now. But back then when context was different (and our interests aligned) we did not hesitate to call them freedom fighters. Which is it? some of those same "freedom fighter" fought us and are now "terrorists".Which is it????
Hey, Floyd fan, kids in africa are starving because corporations patent the genes of grains they develop, give away hybrid grains that don't produce seeds that'll grow, then let their victims starve because they can no longer grow food to feed themselves or afford to pay for seed. (BTW, charitable organizations seldom send food to africa from the US in cars. Your original post was about cars.)
All of the things you list above (infant mortality, illiteracy, dying 'early') are all being exacerbated by policies of corporate-controlled america, which have been gaining more and more control of our country starting under Reagan, getting worse under the Bushes AND Clinton. Remember NAFTA? It's still affecting our lives, weakening our unions and putting the middle class right on the edge in this country. Thanks to democrats selling out just like the GOP. to Money.
PS: if you hate those damned environmentalists so much, why don't you show us all up and move to Love Canal, or Three Mile Island? Or Chernobyl? Or go drink some that water with Chomium 6 in it like they had in "Erin Brokovitch". Yum!
O~ Him that studies revenge keeps his own wounds green. -- Francis Bacon
If you look at the report, what you will see is not a discussion of a particular scientific theory or set of theories.
You are correct that science is not a handmill to grind out fact (although science does establish facts in the long run.) I have made similar points on /. about this (and gotten flamed for my patience.)
But the report is discussing how Bush's administration is suppressing scientific debate for ideological reasons. They are selecting against people who hold particular, well established and reasonable views that happen to clash with the White House ideology. They are excluding qualified scientists and preferrentially choosing people who are involved in the very industries they are meant to regulate. They are denying funding to AIDS researchers who use "hot button" words.
20 Nobel Prizewinners may be wrong about science. But they've seen enough of how science should be done to be accurate judges of when it's being distorted.
Protect your liberties. Donate to the ACLU
This is yet another example of why I'm quickly
becoming disillusioned with the Linux movement.
It is becoming *very* political in all aspects.
I don't want to be part of a technical community
which continually subjects everything to some
type of political litmus test. I'm *not* a Bush
fan, but at the same time, I'm not going to get
behind extreme left-wing politics, especially if
my chosen profession is going to be subjected
to it. If this is the trend that the Linux
community is going to continue in then its time
for some reform that lets us focus on creating
solutions that are free of political encumber-
ences, including licenses with political and economic motives.
Uh-huh, sure... All Scientists are pure of
heart, and they walk on water; especially
Scientists who political aspirations are
on the left, eh???
** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.
really? no proof given though, huh?
** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.
Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.
UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.
The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).
I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.
How can there be any debate over who has more credibility? On the one side is a bunch of conservative cronies who, if they could have their way, would keep evolution out of schools, completely remove any education mentioning birth control, strip ALL environmental regulations, etc. etc.
On the other hand we have a large group of presitigous scientists, researchers, Nobel Laureates, medical experts, university chairs and presidents, etc., some of whom were advisors to republican presidents and many of whom aren't even affiliated in any way with the Union of Concerned Scientists. One of the guys is a former Nixon/Ford guy and he basically says Nixon was like Galileo compared to Bush.
Even if I were Republican, I'd take the 20 Nobel Laureates over Bush, DeLay, Cheney, etc.
P.S. This has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Saddam Hussein. Gore isn't president and Saddam being bad doesn't necessarily make Bush good. This is about science, and how Bush's brand of conservatism is playing games with it to suit their agenda.
Oh, and by the way :
"No. The island is *not* sinking !"
The best source of real knowledge we have are trustworthy witnesses. The more witnesses the better.
No, the best source of real knowledge is understanding for yourself what a theory is saying. I *know* that 2 x 2 = 4. I believe that electromagnetic fields exist, but I can only infer that from observing some phenomena and listening to a teacher.
No one in history has observed even one tiny step of evolution.
Bollocks, just work in a microlab for a few weeks. "That test looks wrong", "Oh, it's just variant xyz, same as the regular bug but it can metabolise sorbitol".
"Among the statement signers are: Philip W. Anderson*, David Baltimore*, Paul Berg*, Lewis Branscomb, Thomas Eisner*, Jerome Friedman, Richard Garwin*, Walter Kohn*, Neal Lane, Leon Lederman*, Mario Molina, W.K.H. Panofsky*, F. Sherwood Rowland, J. Robert Schrieffer*, Richard Smalley, Harold E. Varmus*, Steven Weinberg*, E.O. Wilson*.
* National Medal of Science, Nobel laureate"
Let me get this right, they're saying that by making policy based on advice by scientists other than them, the Bush administration is censuring them? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the findings of these agencies are still published are they not? If they were really being censured, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because none of this information would be public domain. No, this is really just a bunch of people whining because the policy that gets made isn't the policy they want to see get made. Well, I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration is not required to follow their recommendations no matter what they received the Nobel prize for, and that's a fact.
We outspent them
Boy, did we.... and the National Visa Card is now bursting at the seams. The latest maniac to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (with the original cast of "Ronnie's Raiders" backing him up) is currently making the Gipper look like a piker in comparison.
Yes, we outspent the Soviets. Indeed the Soviet Union ceased to exist politically in late 1991 thanks, in part to that spending. Unfortunately, the current US debt (7x10^12) is a drag on any economic recovery real or imagined. A falling dollar along with a rise in interest rates doesn't give any potential investor any "warm cuddlies". If we continue to borrow and spend, we might as well all learn to speak Mandarin.
"The Ruskies"?
Hey Pops, isn't that your time machine sitting over there?
2001 - Bush places crippling restrictions on stem cell research because the cells come from leftover embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway. Despite the fact that stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical research since genome mapping, Bush doesn't want to "condone abortion".
2002 - Bush's flagship environmental policy is the "Healthy Forest Initiative", which aims to reduce forest fires by easing logging restrictions in National Forests (look it up yourself!) Actually that one's good logic- less forests, less forest fires!
2003 Bush appoints Mike Levitt, the pro-industry Republican governor from Utah to head the EPA.
The administration has axed education programs that mention birth control, (he's got an "abstinence only" policy despite zero evidence showing that that works -theres even evidence it might be counter-effective), issued the "Global Gag Rule", gutted the Clean Air Act, forced the EPA to cut any mention of global warming from their state of the environment report, etc. etc..
Seriously, the list goes on and on..
Laureates in what, though?
You are missing the point.
They aren't endorsing or condemning a particular technical theory. They are condemning a way of cherry picking positions and data from the body of scientific work which is profoundly antithetical to the spirit of science, which as laureates they understand quite well, thank you.
Every scientific paper starts with the assumption the scientist might be wrong. We know he doesn't really beleive this, but he is not allowed to dismiss the possibility, or any evidence that supports that possibility. He then proceeds to bend over backwards to try to prove he is wrong. Ideally, he does a better job at criticizing his position than his most virulent could manage. The method is, to do your damndest to prove yourself are wrong and fail.
This is called intellectual honesty. The reason scientists go through all the bother with intellecutal honesty is its precious end product: credibility.
I don't think intellectual honesty is part of the political mindset. They go about getting credibility by entirely different means (mostly various forms of distraction). The problem for prominent scientsts is that after they've invested so much in gaining credibility the hard way, they can't stand to see somebody else get it on the cheap.
Post may contain irony: discontinue use if experiencing mood swings, nausea or elevated blood pressure.
Yet strangely, the people in charge of education in the US are whining for more money from the federal government and complaining about having to be able to show results (testing) and are asking to have the ability to spend it any way they want. Personally, I'd give them more money, if they did away with teacher "tenure" (heck, they have a really strong union with a grievence panel, why do they need tenure on top of that?) and if the education lobby would also agree to more testing (have to make sure graduates can read/write/calculate normally), I'd bet many people would be in favor of more money...
As a silly example of what can happen with today's system, "extra" money became available for schools that weren't performing very well (part of Bush's no-child-left-behind program). Apparently at some HS's with tight budgets (because local tax revenues are down), football was in danger because of Title IX requirements for equal spending for male/female sports (basically each $1 going to football requires $2 to spend). With the "extra" money, they found they could have football (and even in some cases a dedicated football coach "employee", not teacher) if they engaged a little bit of creative accounting. The school boards budgetted less money on teachers and books (and used the "extra" federal money to cover that) and freed up their normal budget dollars to spend on Title IX sports using an "accounting" trick to bypass the funding "earmarks". No skin off their noses, they treated the "extra" money as if it came from the sky and the and football supporters seemed to be happy. Argh!
I'm always puzzled why the so-called education advocates seem to think "extra" money for education has to come through the US federal government. In my experience, the more times money changes hands, the less you get for your buck (lots of mouths to feed in between). Seems to me that if we paid more tax money to local governments and less tax money to the feds, teachers would probably make out better if education was funded through local governments only (police, firefolks, etc generally get money through local governments and they generally get paid more than teachers). Then the "control" would be more local and a strong national teacher's union would probably have all the hapless/clueless local governments at their feet.
And if the folks on the other side of the country want to spend their own tax money on football, so be it. Just don't spend my money in a place I can't vote the local school board out of office... (my history is a bit rusty, but didn't some country fight a revolutionary war on some tax representation issue?)
But I digress...
really? no proof given though, huh?
Proof of the scientific studies or proof of government omissions? It should be obvious that they don't need to republish the results of previous studies in this report.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Ah, but there are such things as verifiable scientific qualifications. Of course, a little healthy skepticism is good too. You are free to verify the findings of the report on your own. This isn't politics; it's science.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
I can't access the report right now, but I still managed to find this from cnn.com:
Among the examples cited in the union's report:
* A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.
* A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.
* A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.
I'm surprised that you couldn't find the examples yourself. Did you read the actual report or just an article about the report?
"Anyone but Bush in 2004" is of course a bit of an exaggeration. I'm guessing fully 30% of the population of the United States would make a worse president than George W. As it stands, I'd vote for anyone who showed a lick of financial competence and wasn't planning on siphoning off more of my rights (Patriot Act 2, anyone?) and kowtowing to the Christian right. Oh, and someone who doesn't want the power to arbitrarily designate me as a terrorist and send me off to some internment camp. The governemnt can do that right now, you realize.
:)
And the answer to my question is totalitarian governments in general, not just communist ones.
Mod me offtopic. I've got a strong opinion and karma to burn.
Main Entry: 1censure Pronunciation: 'sen(t)-sh&r Function: noun Etymology: Latin censura, from censEre 1 : a judgment involving condemnation 2 archaic : OPINION, JUDGMENT 3 : the act of blaming or condemning sternly 4 : an official reprimand
Furthermore, it says clearly, in at least one case, that a U.S. scientist was blocked 11 times from being able to share his research with Dutch scientists who asked for it. That is *censorship*. And since the research dealt with bacterial emissions near hog farms, I highly doubt it was a matter of national security.
Finally, the scientists are not asserting that the Bush administration, or any administration, be required to take their advice. They are saying that the Bush administration is deliberately trying to suppress scientific data with which the administration disagrees. I for one have a much higher degree of confidence in the learned advice of a Nobel laureate than in man who once said that "even C students [like him] can become President of the United States."
How many scientists signed the petition? 60? Hmm...they were able to get a lot more to sign their global warming, pro kyoto treaty petition (1,600, including 110 Nobel laureates). Of course, this was met with a counter petition, which 17,000 scientists signed. But of course this was, according to UCS, a "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation." So, if they were only able to muster up 60 signatures for this one, then that tells me that they had a whole lot of trouble rallying support.
a number *are* Republicans (not "of")
If it's not redundant, why don't you actually try refuting any of those statements. Go ahead, I'll wait.
--
Do I look like I speak for my employer?
Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.
Since John obviously can't read between the lines to the real meaning - well give it to him bluntly
We (the scientists who signed this), believe that you are seen as a joke in the scientific community because of you inability to communicate the exact meaning of the science to the people you report to.
Do you think John will understand that?
In my next incarnation, I hope to come back as a code monkey.
The parrent doesn't seem to be flaimbait or a troll. I am confused as to why it is modded as such.
believe
often in fields they are not experienced in
alluded to
Nobel
laureates
omniscient
Ha, good one! But you forget that this is a report and that was a petition. The former needs only the signatures of the participants, while the latter needs the signatures of as many people as possible.
Why is this comment flamebait? Something tells me that people haven't been reading the moderator guidelines.
I think you mised the parent's point, none of these things have anything to do with the environmental sciences.
Some considerations for those who are hanging on the fence on this scientists versus politicisns (a.k.a the Bush administration) issue.
Scientists pursue mainly knowledge. Politicians pursue mainly power. You need knowledge to gain and maintain power, so it's only natural that any government would try and make it's policies look "scientifically" sound.
Now, some politicians may use power to implement sound policies, but mostly they are too damn concerned about their own short term interest. Similarly, some scientists may use their position of knowledge to exercise power over their peers, institutions and funding bodies, or to influence what counts as science. But 20 Nobels it's a fairly significant sample of a scientific body to listen to and take stook of what they're complaining about.
With funding deciding the course of scientific research these days, it's easy to see why so many scientists, particularly early in their career, balk at the idea of taking a political stand. And when they finally do, as in the case of the 20 Nobels complaining about the Bush admin distorting scientific facts and figures to suit their policies, there is an uproar.
Some of the above comments about the relativity of scientific theories, political bias and so on make for an interesting academic discussiom, but that's not the issue here. The issue is that politicians, unless they have some reasonable degree of mental culture, are not capable of making, let alone thinking up, intelligent policies. Add to that a bunch of power driven science advisers and you've got a hyper-managed "make-it-look-neat" soviet era style sort of govermnet policy on just about every type of social, environmental or health related scientic issue.
There was a time when scientists, like philosophers before them, pursued knowledge for knowledge's sake. That pursuit has become now an industry that is "managed" by governments and corporations seeking their own interest (power, dominance, control, profit making, etc).
Though economically well off the scientist has become politically disenfranchised, and that's what this damming report is all about: exercising one's political right as a scientist to inform the community about the government suppresing scientific finding to fit its policy decisions.
Where can I sign up so I can make people think I'm speaking from a position of knowledge and not simply spewing emotional rhetoric?
What he is saying is I disagree with most of what they say already, so I will ignore the rest.
The jury is still out on whether humans are causing/have caused global warming.
Only for scientist working for Bush and Oil companies, that is the entire point of the article.
Commonsense says in a world of limited resources, cars that consume twice as much, and are more likely to kill people might be a bad idea... But what the heck! It is a free world who believes in that "tragedy of the commons" stuff anyway.
"If we hit that bullseye, the rest of the dominoes should fall like a house of cards. Checkmate." - Zapp Brannigan
Look, I think it's a little hard to believe that someone with a yearly income three orders of magnitude greater than mine works three orders of magnitude harder, or is three orders of magnitude smarter, or more worthy, or anything.
And furthermore, even placing an equivalent proportional tax rate on the wealthy and the poor isn't really equivalent. Asking someone making $10k a year to give half is income in taxes is a little different from asking someone making $500k a year to do the same.
I made $13,000 last year in a job that paid $11,500.
So... you've been eBaying stolen office supplies, then?
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Nelson: Ha-Haaa! Comic Book Store Guy: Worst. President. Ever.
Visit the best Liberal Blog: DU
Wait. If someone were caught and shot without trial, bail or hearing... where would someone even hear about it? This falls under the list of things I'm told are conveniently kept secret, like the supposedly numerous plots handily foiled with those oh-so-necessary Patriot Act powers. You've changed the question, and are now asking me to prove something that, by definition, can't be proven. No dice.
--grendel drago
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
How very interesting that concepts of God and Gospel have been replaced by Science.
/. colleagues that keep supporting these scientists as High Priests of Scientific Truth are as guilty of fanaticism and fundamentalism as the most radical Bible-thumpin' Baptist or Islamic Jihadist.
These "Nobel Laureates" have blasted the Bush administration with their "scientific" article.
Does anyone really believe that any science is purely devoid of politics? Go talk to professors trying to reach tenure. Go talk to researchers fighting for funding. Ask them if politics plays a part in their everyday lives. They're as political as any politician. These days you can't do science without money and you don't get money if you don't play the game.
Since the advent of the "Environmental Awareness" movement (my description for it, good or bad), it has been profitable for many scientists to find ways that the human race has damaged the environment. Any challenge to that dogma is met with violent opposition, as it threatens sources of funding.
This is not to say that the human race hasn't harmfully altered the environment. It does, however, point out a definite bias that these scientists might be subject to. They're not God, after all, they're human beings with normal human frailties, including prejudices and political agendas.
My esteemed
These scientists may be right. Then again, they may be biased. What is the extent of their bias? What could their motivations be? Can they truly be objective when the Bush administration's policies seem to be heading down a path of withdrawing funding from their projects or projects of friends?
Remember this: Jimmy Carter was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for engineering a "peace" that isn't. One of the original terrorists, Yassar Arafat, was awarded a Nobel Peace Prize for that same "peace." (After the event which garnered both of these men their Nobel Prizes, Arafat declared an "Intifada" that has taken the lives of over 900 Israeli civilians.)
Nothing exists in a pure vacuum. These scientists don't. Politics, like it or not, plays a part in everything. Including science.
which includes 20 Nobel laureates
Considering Arch-Terrorist Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize Laureate, being an NPL is an insult, not a booster for credence. What next? Are they Time's Man of the Year as well? Give me a break.
The worst part about it is that Arafat got a prize started by Alfred Nobel, to *counteract* the terrible effect that the very dynamite that Arafat uses and promotes, causes.
The Nobel Prize is a political prize. Had it been merely recognition, it wouldn't involve money. The thought that this is used to bolster the recipient's apoliticality is absolutely hilarious.
Slashdot keeps politicking, and still keeps on ticking. Amazing.
Have you read my journal today?
no, I couldn't access the report either. The info. that I got I obtained from UCS' website. Look, my point is that, for "scientists" they really don't go into any structured methods in their criticism. I was also pointing out that this is all too common for UCS. That's because they are nothing more than an advocacy group. When they can get a few scientists to sign off on something, they claim that they are speaking for the scientific community. "See? We even have 'scientists' in our name! We must be legit." The subtitle on their website even shows that they are an environmental advocacy group. Sixty scientists do not represent the entire scientific community, unless we are hopelessly short on scientists these days. As I wrote before, they were able to obtain many more signatures for one of their previous complaints (1,600), though, when 17,000 other scientists argued against them, UCS immediately discredited their statements. Now, are some scientists angry because they think that things are being surpressed? I'm sure some are, probably because the administration is taking the advice of other scientists. Could there be validity to UCS' arguments? I don't know, they seem to stab in the dark a lot on previous arguments that they've made. Go to their website and read some of their hot topics. It's not about whether you agree with them or not, but for scientists they never seem to have any hard proof for their arguments. But there could be some validity to this argument. I for one though, just find it hard to take an advocacy group like UCS' word for it. Bush is a real easy target right now, some of it being for good reason, so this seems like a pretty good time to try and put a nail in his coffin, perhaps to further an agenda. And I disagree...this stinks of politics, not science.
You see, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.
/.
This reminds me of when you make a typo when in the middle of an argument on
Um, Galileo was considered a heretic not because he was a scientist, but because he couldn't back a lot of his own claims up, and, because he also called the Pope an idiot.
Anyone who has taken an introductory course in the history of science knows that the reasons for Galileo's house arrest were complex. He did not believe that the Pope, who had been his friend, would let him fall to the inquisition. And for proof, all he needed to show were the moons of Jupiter that his discovered (and named after the Medici family - his patrons).
Similarly, much ado is made of how Copernicus had to "fight the power" of the church because he dared to propose the earth went around sun, but in reality tables produced from Copernicus's circular orbits were less accurate than their Ptolemiac predecessors.
Copernicus never fought the power. His book wasn't published until after his death.
The other thing that people forget is that science is a tool, not a means to an end. Science teaches us how to make things and how to better exploit the world around us. To say that there is an innate value system built around science is absurd. At the end of the day, there's little difference between Martha Stewart teaching how to put little curly cues on a cake, and a scientist teaching how to make an atom split. It's just an exotic Home Depot, and nothing more. As such, science must always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will.
Science may be a tool, but it is a tool for understanding ourselves, the world around us, and the universe at large. And it does have a value system - it is simply that the truth will prevail through peer review.
To say that it teaches us how to better exploit the world is also a misnomer. It teaches us how things work - the exploitation comes in the hands of technologists and engineers who apply the knowlege.
Calling science an "exotic Home Depot" is absurd. Science does not build tools, it builds knowledge. It's more akin to the best-stocked library in the world than a home improvement store.
Saying that science must "always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will" is ludicrous. Before important work by scientists, it was believed that tetrahedral lead was a perfectly innocuous additive to gasoline. The popular will wanted cheap gas that didn't make their car engines knock, and the political will was to keep the lead and oil companies happy by sweeping study after study pointing out the harmful effects of lead under the rug. It was only by the prolonged actions of scientists (and yes [gasp] environmentalists) that we are now breathing much less-toxic air. Politicians love nothing more than to protect the status quo (and prove that their opposition is a bunch of lying dogs even though they support nearly the same issues, but I digress), and the people are happiest when they're ignorant. It may be an unenviable task, but until the people and the government become interested in the truth, it will be up to scientists to push their ideas as hard as they can.
It must always tell the truth, to be sure, but we are under no obligation to abide by it or accept that what it teaches is useful or even valuable.
(I find it kind of ironic that you hold science to the standard of always telling the truth, but you don't put the same qualifications on politicians or the "popular will.")
We must, by definition, abide by the truth. If we did not accept Copernicus and Kepler's truth about how the planets really moved, or if we didn't accept Newton's laws, space travel would be impossible. Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, and is usually much more painful than just accepting it in the long run.
Finally, knowledge is always valuable. Let us not forget that knowledge = power.
> Bollocks, just work in a microlab for a few weeks. "That test looks wrong", "Oh, it's just variant xyz, same as the regular bug but it can metabolise sorbitol".
The scientist modified some genes - he "reprogrammed" the bug's organism. That's not evolution, that's creation.
Evolution says: monkeys became men. Proof?
I find the threads that have developed both amusing and alarming. It seems to me that half the problems in the US are attributable to the way that EVERYTHING has to be divided on bi-polar lines. Democrat vs Republican (who cares? what do they mean?) Evolutionist vs creationist (God created light, and then a little while later, God created the Sun....ermmm...oops!) Hawks vs doves (what the f***? And this is appearing in MY country now!) Isn't there any space for people who don't care about the 'two parties', want to live a normal quiet life, want to see peace in the world, want to see fewer homeless people, want to see fewer pictures of starving children in various African countries, want to see people with INTELLIGENCE AND MORALS in power? Or are you ALL so introverted that the only time you see other countries is when the Simpsons go there?
Are you saying, you unpatriotic, anty western, freedom hater, child molester, are you saying tha thge leader of the freeworld is using a variation of the Chewbacca defense?
I hope you like mambo, you will need in in Gauntanamo.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
All would be great if your hero Bush and his gang of four (Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and regrettably Powell) where not pretending they were absolutely sure the weapons existed.
They showed us satellite photographs, they have witnesses (that has turned out where parroting what Rumsfeld and his chums wanted to hear).
You have been lied or misled, and here you are, blaming the journalists for asking the most basic question: you say this was so, why it is not?
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
.... are you sying these pople are ideologaically dishonest in order to gain power?
If they are like that to woe supporters, what woul stop them to be equally deceitful to get ahead of detractors?
In other words: dear USians, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING!
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
being the PM and his cabinet the executive and part of the legislative, the balance of power is greatly diminished.
IANAL but write like a drunk one.
Which was started by Ariel Sharons deliverate provocation by going onto the Temple Mount. How many thousands of Palestinians have been killed. THis conflict is nopt one sided. both are to blame. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorists too.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
also there is a BIG difference between nobel peace prizes and nobel science prizes.
-- Karma Karma Karma Karma, Karma Chameleon - Boy George
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
Here is an article that, in addition to being very funny, provides an interesting insight to the scientific community.
http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html
In a nutshell it describes how most academia (which for all practical matters is the "Science" being discusses here) is caught in a feedback loop.
The problem is like minded people, espousing like minded theories, reviewing like minded peers.
Take Global Warming as an example. To hear the news media talk about it, Global Warming is a Fact. Yet there are plenty of well respected scientists that are not convinced either of its existence (in terms of Man being a causal factor) or of its importance (it may exist, but it's not going to destroy mankind). When there is credible dissent on such a theory, would it not be wise to have the dissenters a part of the review process?
Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.
Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.
But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies that do the hard work and give reasoned explanations, but the ones that tell you what you want to support your policy even if they have to exaggerate/make up/cherry-pick it. It would be a recipe for disaster - you might even go to war on false pretenses and a completly wrong idea of the actual costs involved!
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
Heh heh. Well, there's a fine line between dogged determination and pedanticity. The main difference here being that science matters, and slashdot typos (along with faulty statements regarding computers, entertainment, etc.) don't.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
During the Iran Iraq war the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the shite insurgents fighting for Iran. The CIA supplied telemetry on the targeting of said weapons.
"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
George W. Bush Chattanooga, Tenn. Nov. 6, 2000
Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.
I forget, who is it that decides which scientist is credible? And I guess the others are not paid by the lobbies of prominent administration detractors. And of course their theories don't conviniently support the agenda of the "others".
Science is as political as any other dicipline.
But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies....blah, blah, blah
Let's stay focused here.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment.
SDI in the '80s was a ruse designed to trick the Soviets into spending more money on defense and defense research than they could afford.
The plan was an unmitigated success because regardless of whether we could actually make SDI work, *THEY* believed we could make it work.
I'm not exactly sure why the idea is still alive, unless the DoD actually thinks we can really make it work now. If they want to fend off potential terrorist missle attacks then a scenario of a dozen or so missles is far more likely than the *thousands* we were expecting in a USSR first strike in the eighties.
The interesting thing is that some people think the same sort of ruse may be afoot with Bush and his moon and mars idea.
"Lawyers are for sucks."
- Doug McKenzie
How does one respond, facing that door straight to hell?
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
Seastead this.
btw didn't mean to post anonymously in response to your last two posts...just forgot to log in.
Let's stay focused here.
He was staying focused.
Listening to all sides and coming to a conclusion after carefully weighing the evidence is important, and decidedly NOT what the current administration has done. Rather, they have chosen to listen only to those who support their pre-concieved notions, or can provide justification for acts they have already decided to commit. Isn't that the entire point of the article?
I forget, who is it that decides which scientist is credible? And I guess the others are not paid by the lobbies of prominent administration detractors. And of course their theories don't conviniently support the agenda of the "others".
An excellent point, and the only answer I can come up with is "the Scientific Community", which is a poor answer. Maybe "Experts in the Field" is better.
Certainly, though, the Bush administration doesn't hold a monopoly on bad science. Greenpeace is just as guilty as the "Creation Scientists" in that regard. It's just that much more disappointing when our elected representatives, and indeed the most powerful men in the world, who are charged with our wellbeing, show such blatant disregard for Truth (and don't even get me started on Justice and the American Way).
Under capitalism man exploits man. Under communism it's the other way around.
you sir, are a pretentious git.
Certainly, though, the Bush administration doesn't hold a monopoly on bad science.
Agreed. Every interest group will view science through their own templates; Conservatives, Liberals, Environmentalists, Creationists, etc.
And these templates have affected public policy time and time again.
It's a natural thing that the group in power gets to choose the current template.
It's also a natural thing that the group out of power gets whine about it.
The Truth lies somewhere in between.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Where I said:
"I was clear enough that there were already light-colored moths present before the massive soot-generation started."
I meant to type:
"I was clear enough that there were already dark-colored and light-colored moths present before the massive soot generation started."
Sorry for any confusion. I'm just trying to clear up terms for everybody. Saying things like "evolution doesn't happen" just makes you look foolish when you argue with the sciency types, because by the accepted definition, it does happen and has happened within recent history. Make your argument clearer by stating that you believe evolution does not create new species or is not responsible for creating people, if you wish.
That said, I'm a sciency type, and I would appreciate it noted that I have tried to be fair and balanced here while pointing this out. I'm not trying to sell anybody my beliefs, only pointing out the small part of the idea of "evolution" that is testable and tested fact. The rest of it is, and will remain for the forseeable future, only a theory.
Try going to www.junkscience.com and reading up on what is there about the "quality" of those models you think so much of.
What's all this talk about "the scientists"?
It's not like a bunch of concerned scientists got together one day for the purposes of releasing this statement- the USC is an established political activist group like any other, with a very specific agenda.
They wouldn't give two whits if scientific data was being distorted to support THIER views. In fact, they're probably not above doing so themselves! I mean, there ARE scientists who disagree with them. Do you think those views, or the evidence that supports them, will be presented fairly on the UCS Web site?
(note- this isn't at all a defense of George Bush. Just a healthy dose of political skepticism, because I think skepticism is pretty cool.)
If this were an isolated event, then maybe I would agree with you. But this is part of a larger trend of frustration at the administration for the reasons outlined in the report. I don't know how trustworthy these UCS folks are, but they are giving a strong voice to a concern that many people have. I'd rather see this become an issue than swept under the carpet. What's most important to me is that UCS has not made an irrefutable claim. A third party can look at the evidence and choose to support them, or not.
Now, when someone makes a completely partisan statement, they claim without evidence (or knowingly with bad evidence). I don't feel that UCS has made such a statement.
Admittedly, this report released at this time is necessarily going to become political. But again, there's no harm if this becomes an investigated issue and not some smear like the 'Al Gore creating the internet' debacle.
Be reasonable. No one is claiming to be the voice of humanity. It's a report. Reports are often inaccurate, but if no one publishes anything then we don't get very far, do we?
I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office
I've a better idea. How about we just never let a sitting president run for re-election? That way, they would actually pay attention to what they were supposed to be doing for four years, rather than taking a year or more off their job to campaign for re-election. Yes, they'd probably be supporting their favourite new candidate for the job, but I don't think that takes as much time away as actually campaigning does. If we expanded this to all elected political offices, I think this would go a long way toward helping our elected officials do their jobs right all the time. They could, of course, run again next time (provided they haven't already had their limit of terms). As it is, incumbents all over the political map have very significant advantages. Here in New York State, we've had very low turnover for the past 2 decades...and we also haven't passed a budget on time any year for the past 20 years. Getting some of the old deadwood out of the state legislature might help that.
I realize that in many cases the incumbents have good experience, and might do a better job than whoever replaces them. But they can run again next time, and prove it. At least that way, there would be change, rather than, in many places, the same faces for 20+ years straight. And, in the case of the Presidency, we'd have a national leader more focused on doing his job than getting money and support for his re-election campaign.
Dan Aris
Fun. Free. Online. RPG. BattleMaster.
It is interesting that you tout the removal of lead from gasoline as a clear cut triumph of science, but the reality is far mixed.
The removal of leaded gasoline helped destroy detroit and the american manufacturing base. So, yeah, we are breathing cleaner air, and saving the lives of a few thousand people for it, but, the price has been that millions of people had their lives destroyed because the retooling required to make engines that effectively run on leadless gasoline helped undermine american manufacturing sovereignty.
Had Richard Nixon not founded the EPA, we might have actually had avoided the destruction of the American middle class. So, yeah, you can science is an absolute, lead is clearly bad. But, relentlessly implementing without a sober examination of the actual cost of doing so is simply, um, bad science. Why not have a cost benefit breakdown for environmental legislation - isn't that, um, scientific?
This is my sig.
Thank you for your comment. I made the mistake of using (bias = having an opinion on the object of an analysis) rather than what it should have been, which is (I think) (bias = an opinion which determines the outcome of one's analysis). I probably would have been better off saying "because the UCS has a political position doesn't render their commentary incorrect" instead of what I did say.
Keep in mind that "Experts in the Field" can also be wrong. The work of some experts in the climate science field can't be duplicated (except by them), and they try to block competing viewpoints from being considered.
Now, go read Al Gore's book on Earth and see how much sense that makes...
Well, there is a point where such a satellite could be placed. But it is so far that it would have to carry a powerful telescope, and would need quite an amount of fuel to get out there. This wouldn't be a football that could be tossed out by the Shuttle.
Also, if you have seen your local TV weather, you know that there already are weather satellites which are producing live images of Earth. If you really want to, the images could be stitched together. Gore wanted a hardware solution when similar data is already available.
Tetraethyl lead, not tetrahedral lead.
Meanwhile, the current Republican-dominated Congress has entirely no sense of responsibility on spending. They're worse than the Reagan-era Democrats, who were doing classic Keynesian inflation, and they're keeping all the Clinton pork barrel and adding new military-industrial pork barrel. Clinton was able to get the Fed to cut interest rates early in his administration, so he covered his budgets by refinancing the Reagan/Bush national debt at low interest. Bush can't do that, and if he tries inflating it away like the Reagan Democrat Congresses did, we'll get absolutely killed in the global market.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Liberals, all the way down
A well-known group of scientists (some say it was The Union of Concerned Scientists) once made a public announcement on Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. They accused a presidential administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether. After the announcement, the administration's staunchest supporters said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The announcement is really a liberal attack on our beloved administration for political reasons." One of the scientists gave a superior smile before replying, "Do you dispute the evidence we present, or just the conclusions?" "You're very clever, Mr. Scientist, very clever," they said. "But it makes no difference at all, it's liberals all the way down."
P.S. Yes we Americans also know about the Haliburton pipeline conspiracy that was the cause for the war in afghanistan (being attacked at home had nothing to do with it)
I think Tom Clancy used it in one of his novels, the trouble is the pipeline was marginally strategic when the Soviet Union existed. Now it totally unecessary. Even if it were, Haliburton would find it much easier to maintain an oil pipeline under the totalitarian Taliban regime than under the current flegling democracy.
Don't tell anyone, but the real conspiracy is about freedom.
That's right, when women, men and people of all religions and ethnicities are empowered to make a better life for themeselves, prosperity will follow. If it doesn't, THEN start blaming the U.S. Until then, the problem is far more likely to be caused by your leader.