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.
Good job, shrub.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
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
Considering the president was a 'C' student, why should he care about science?
I have no problem believing the president means well, but I also believe he's daft. The concerns of the UCS fly may appear to contradict my beliefs, but I think the president thinks there's something good about allowing more lead in water, more snowmobiles in Yellowstone park, etc. I just can't see what it is. Maybe, like those big tax cuts for the rich, this is supposed to create jobs.
Now Cheney, he's a stinker.
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
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?!
Ya know the old saying:
"Scientists are like assholes, everyone's got one."
That was how it went, wasn't it ?
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.
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?
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.
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.
So, the smart people you know have "left" political leanings? Maybe this should tell you something.
Maybe the "otherwise" was unclear?
Before you try to be clever, perhaps you should read something a couple of times so the meaning sinks in.
-Styopa
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.
Maybe your parents need to move. My fiance's property taxes went down last year by about $250.
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
Good crap, what a bunch of cowardly anonymous unscientific minds on this one!
Two things, deal with them: There is the THEORY of evolution that addresses the HOW (not the whether/if). Then there is the FACT of evolution. That is it. There is FACT (evolution DOES occur, both micro and macro (there's no difference but one of degree). This is uncontested in the REAL world (where scientists and the scientifically literate dwell). Then there is the THEORY about how it occurs: punctuated equilibrium, simple gradualism, neodarwinism.
Another thing to deal with as reality. A scientific THEORY is NOT a minor thing. It is just short of a LAW. There's atomic THEORY, for instance. Do you have a problem with that? There's quantum THEORY. Problem with that? Actually, the theory aspect of evolution studies is JUST as well backed up and solid as is atomic theory.
Toss your bible away, it is not a factual, blow-by-blow account of much of anything. It is loaded with metaphor, parable, and cultural history as seen through the colored glasses of many different religious customs and social customs. It is NOT a cookbook. Deal with it.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Ever hear of books-on-tape? I've never bought them, and I'd definitely never buy one by that arrogant blowhard Franken, but I can envision many an ill-educated left-winger opting for this particular book-on-tape. They could get their Two Minutes Hate fix without having to puzzle over the squiggly marks on paper.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
It's a reasonable extrapolation from what I have read about him elsewhere. Hell, his own book titles are illuminating in this regard.
20 January 2017: the End of an Error.
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.
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.
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?