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.

Comments

Politicians distorting the facts?

[Shut the fuck up!]

Novel theory.

Oh, boy!

[qw(name)]

Can you tell it's an election year?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Another way to spin that is that they delayed its release to coincide with the election year.

Re:Oh, boy!

[strike2867]

Thats great, 100 bucks a month. While you got your 100 bucks, Bush took away school funding. I had to pay over a grand more for tuition(per semester). My parents had to pay 500 more to the school in our area for property tax. The health care costs rose up a bitch. So just take that 100 bucks and shove it up your ass.

Re:Oh, boy!

[RicoX9]

And the Liberal/Democrats fail to make ANY allowance in their rhetoric for cost of living. In New York, a school teacher may make over $90K/yr. That makes them "RICH", by the Liberal definition. I guarantee they don't feel rich while they're paying out probably $2K+/mo for rent/mortgage on a small living space, and 1/3 of their paycheck is going straight down the tubes of government excess.

I have no problem with there being a flat tax. 15% is not outrageous. The earlier poster who suggested that we should limit the amount of money one should be able to make is obviously clueless. There are plenty of places in the world that do limit your income (one way or another), and I guarantee you wouldn't be happy there.

Re:Oh, boy!

[KarmaMB84]

Since the high income earners make so much more, they can afford to pay a higher percentage. It's based on the ability to pay and the fact that they can pay more in taxes than most people actually get to keep because they have plenty left over to live better than everyone else.

If you think the US government serves the middle class as well as it does the wealthy, you are sadly mistaken. The people that have the money are the ones that influence the government

If you made $10,000 per year and the government took $2,000 of it, you'd miss that $2,000 more than a wealthy person making $200,000 would miss $40,000 (I can guarantee they wouldn't even lose that much after taking every tax break and exemption in the books). Food, heat, shelter etc do not change in price because you have a different income. The wealthy don't have to live in bigger more expensive houses, eat ridiculously expensive foods or invest their money in businesses, but they do and they apparently have the money to do it even though they pay higher taxes (their salaries are probably inflated to make up for the taxes anyway).

If taxes were completely eliminated, I'd imagine employers would probably cut wages where possible under the excuse "You don't pay taxes anymore so 75% of your old pay is now reasonable!" anyway.

BTW, Gates would be in the category of 5% of citizens that control 80+% of the US's land, wealth etc. I think the people who are making use off the country's wealth on the backs of the other 95% of the population SHOULD pay a higher percentage of their incomes.

Re:Oh, boy!

[jefeweiss]

That's not true at all. Government money goes in an unequal proportion to the rich, not the poor. In any government transaction there are two parties, the government and whoever they pay the money to. Welfare may be the only government program that pays poor people more then the rich. Twenty percent of the US budget goes to pay interest to the rich people who hold the federal debt. I don't give a rat's ass if a bunch of Arabs want to blow each other up, but Amoco sure does. All that money spent on "Ensuring Global Dominance?" I don't need global dominance, but Halliburton does. My interest in global dominance ends at the Risk board. What OS does the US government buy? It's the one Bill Gates made. So much for me getting as much federal money as Bill Gates. You may bring up Social Security, but payroll taxes only apply to the first $90,000 of income. Besides the fact that poor people today pay 50% more Social Security then is needed to cover current obligations so that the President can run up an enormous deficit to give a trillion dollar in tax cuts to billionaires. Google for the federal budget, read through it, and then try to tell me that poor people are getting all the money. It ain't true. And the rich don't pay most of the taxes, the middle class does. They get socked with the most payroll taxes, and they have less recourse to tax shelters to avoid paying income tax.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Mr. Slippery]

Borg Gates and I both receive the same benefits from government, he just has to pay a helluva lot more.

No, Bill Gates receives a lot more benefits from government. Who issues the copyrights and patents that make Microsoft a rich company? Hell, who issued Microsoft's corporate charter? Who issued him the deed to the land where his mansion sits? Who protects Bill from a little grass-roots redistribution of the wealth?

When you're living in a cardboard box, it doesn't much matter if you're living in a democracy or a dictatorship or total anarchy.

Re:Oh, boy!

[GaelenBurns]

Regardless of when the release time is, they make excellent points. I hate the fact that chosing an inoppourtune timing casts doubt on the results. What's more, it's not like we're in October, here. This is not a last-minute, obviously election-related item. We're still the better part of a year away! The timing of this report should not enter into the discussion.

Critique the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER! Talk about the report itself, not the motivation for it.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Blondie-Wan]

Except that similar discussions have previously emerged; this is just the latest.

Here, for example, is an article from September of 2002 on the same thing. That was more than two years before this year's election. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has cropped up before, not by a long shot; it's not even the first time it's come up on Slashdot (see this, or this, or this (referring to the article I referenced above).

Re:Oh, boy!

[isa-kuruption]

FYI, This is a "Clinton Recession" and not a "Bush Recession".

Some facts that you may have overlooked:

1) The "dot-com" burst occured when Clinton was still President. In fact, it ocurred nearly 1 year before Bush was elected.
2) Eight months after Bush got in office, 9/11 happened. As we all know, and what has been acknolwedged by Usama Bin Laden, he himself was responsible for 9/11. If Clinton had taken Yemen's offer in the 90's to get Bin Laden, 9/11 may not have happened therefore the "bad luck" you speak of wouldn't be an issue.

Now some other things you may want to consider:

1) NO PRESIDENT has direct influence on the economy, and any influence that he does have is minor. Therefore, the 4% you speak of was not Clinton's doing.
2) The DJIA is about the same as it was when Clinton left office
3) The unemployment rate today is LESS than the average throughout the 1990s (ya know, when Clinton was there)
4) Every economist is saying the economy is improving. Sure jobs aren't being created as fast as they were in, let's say, 1998-1999, but economists all agree the economy is healing itself in the LONG TERM by increasing efficiency among the current workforce.
5) The tax cuts you are complaining about contributed to all of this. This is not a "fluke" by any stretch.

And regarding the deficit:

1) Before Republicans took control of both the House and Senate during the Clinton years, Democrats had a firm hold on BOTH houses. The deficits existed because of Democratic spending during the 40 years before Republicans took over. It's Congress that defines the budget, not the president (he meerly recommends and approves).
2) Once Gingrich became speaker, he started the "contract with America" in which he gave tax cuts while cutting spending. This was vetoed by Mr Clinton twice before being passed. After it was passed, the economy boomed, which lead to the late-90's great 4% per-year-average growth figure you speak of.
3) The budget became balanced under Gingrich's "contract with America". Clinton just signed the bill, but had almost no input into the bill.
4) When the President proposed tax cuts, he said we'd be back in the black again by 2010. So, I do not know how you consider that in 2014 we'll still have a $400 billion dollar deficit.
5) The cost of Iraq is MERE CRUMBS compared to what is spent on other things. Also, the occupation of Iraq is going to be only about 10% of the cost of the occupation of Japan following WWII (in inflation-adjusted numbers) AND is a smaller amount of GDP than the cost of occupation of Japan.

Tax raises are not inevitable, unless you elect a Democrat. Reagan's supply-side economics proved that huge growth can occur by cutting taxes. In 1981-2, he cut taxes and by 1986 there was an 8.25% increase over 1980 of federal revenue, in 1987 a 16% increase over 1980, in 1988 a 20.7% increase over 1980, and up through 1990 when there was a 28% increase over 1980. This was supported by the creation of 19 million jobs.

Bush is using the SAME policy, and we will see SIMILAR results in 5-8 years just as we did under Reagan.

Re:Oh, boy!

[kisak]

1) NO PRESIDENT has direct influence on the economy

So don't vote...

2) The DJIA is about the same as it was when Clinton left office

DJIA

3) The unemployment rate today is LESS than the average throughout the 1990s (ya know, when Clinton was there)

Not true. Interestingly enough, under Bush the percent working for the government has increased from 15.8 - 16.5 %. Bush is definitley a big government kind of guy.

4) Every economist is saying the economy is improving.

Why don't you just meantion one instead of this "every economist" that no one has heard about.

5) The tax cuts you are complaining about contributed to all of this. This is not a "fluke" by any stretch.

The tax cuts has lead to a huge deficit, which is basicly a huge tax increase on everyone, rich and poor. Of course, the rich are lucky, and have got most of the tax cuts to compensate for this unfortunate tax increase on the nation. Bush the tax increase.

Reagan's supply-side economics proved that huge growth can occur by cutting taxes.

Regean had to reverse his tax cuts. Bush senior had to increase taxes more (read his lips). Clinton increased them even more, and the boom came.

Bush is using the SAME policy, and we will see SIMILAR results in 5-8 years just as we did under Reagan

... when we have a fisical responsible democrate in the White house. Thank God for the republicans with their booms 8 years after leaving office, a boom they gave us even "no president has direct influence on the economy".

Re:Oh, boy!

[OwnedByTwoCats]

The marginal value of most anything shrinks as the quantity owned or consumed go up. The first beer is Great!, the second is great, the third is good, the fourth would be better if I didn't have to pee so bad, the fifth is OK, I really shouldn't have the sixth, if you make me drink a seventh I'll puke...

One takes care of the most fundamental needs first. "nice to haves" and luxuries come later. Taking $2000 from the person with only $20,000 cuts into a lot of things that are hard to do without.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Mac Degger]

The US is spending more than half it's budget on defense and related moneysinks. This includes homeland defense, CIA/FBI/NSA etc spending.

More than half. Of all it's money. Whilst it's economy is down the drain, education is producing people who actually graduate from highschool whilst not being able to read, write or even calculate normaly (without the use of a calculator) and there is a large number of people living below the poverty line.

More than half. And you tell me that the current US government has a sound fiscal policy?

Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.

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?

Re:Who to believe?

[aardvarkjoe]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

I'm not saying that the Bush administration is smelling like a rose, here, but you often find that people with more education or experience have more of an axe to grind. I wouldn't doubt that another panel of equally qualified people would come to somewhat different conclusions.

In short, you shouldn't trust anyone. The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

...who on earth can you trust?

Ever tried trusting your own judgment? Oh, that's right; you and everyone else in society have become so uneducated that you need someone else to make such judgments for you.

Re:Who to believe?

[Docrates]

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?

The fact that Novel laureates are involved just ads more credibility to a political statement, but it's still, by its very nature, a report on consistent behavior of a specifc president/government. If it wasn't political it would be about "The American Government", or "The DOD or the "CDC" and not "The Bush Administration".

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

Re:Who to believe?

[tashanna]

Have you ever tried to get 5 PHD's, much less 20, to agree on anything before? I think you don't understand the scientific process.

Zoom zoom zoom...

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

Of course scientists could have some sort of political bias. But if they put out a report that has scientific facts, not just opinions, that support it and is signed by 20 Nobel laureates, who put their reputation on the line, I think it's safe to say it's more truth than political.

Re:Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

...well, partly because they've dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific truth. What's more, if you're a good enough scientist to make a breakthrough worthy of a Nobel prize, odds are that you value the integrity of the scientific process above whatever partisan bickering may be going on at the time.

I'm not saying that these people are immune to political motivation. I am saying that if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates. That twenty Nobel laureates people felt strongly enough about this to put their names to paper over it should, at the very least, give a person pause.

In short, you shouldn't trust anyone. The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

"You shouldn't trust anyone"? No, of course you should trust people, especially people who demonstrate a strong will to improve the lot of their fellow human. The Bush administration, for example, has relied heavily on the trust of the American public, and a majority of the American people have granted them that trust. Now, you shouldn't exercise blind trust in anybody, and skepticsm is healthy, but trust is an absolutely essential part of human interaction.

That said, I'm inclined to think that the scientists that signed this paper are considerably less politically motivated than the administration.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

When it comes to political questions, sometimes the truth is in the middle. When it comes to science questions, such as whether or not global warming is happening and whether or not we are contributing to it and whether or not the icecaps are melting into the ocean at an alarming rate, well, the scientists are correct, and the administration is wrong.

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature. It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong, just as wrong as you are if you disagree with the fact of evolution (as opposed to the *theory* of how it happened.) There is no middle ground here, there is science, and there is expensive wishful thinking in the form of industry/government supported pseudo-science.

Re:Who to believe?

[Mudd Guy]

I must disagree with the assertion that the truth usually lies in the middle. I think that assertion comes from a culture of inclusion and relativism which results in a lack of ability to recognize that some "points of view" are JUST WRONG.

In this case, ignoring good scientific information is JUST WRONG. There's no middle ground here.

As discussed in the report and articles, the scientists are not taking issue with the policy decisions, becuase that is a much more complicated issue. The scientists just object to the exclusion of good science from the decision making process. How can you argue with that?

If it were simply the Bush administration not always following the policy recommendations of the scientific community, it would be an entirely different matter. Policy making requires cost/benefit analysis. Good science should be used to inform this analysis.

Re:Who to believe?

[drooling-dog]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

You'll have to make up your own mind whether to believe the results of scientific studies or the Bush administration. Which side is "right" on any particular issue is not the point here. What the administration has been doing is squelching the results of studies and replacing scientists who don't give them the results that they and their big contributors want. That is the point.

This has been an on-going issue for the past couple of years, and pretty much every scientist who is paying attention is aware of it. This report is simply an attempt to inform the general public about what's been happening.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

so what, you are going to trust a politician's scientific opinions?

idiot

Re:Who to believe?

[argStyopa]

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?

There's the problem: ANYBODY thinking that "nobel laureate" means NEUTRAL. Some of the most blindingly leftist people I know are otherwise quite bright, but have some sort of personal insecurity or issue that defines their politics.
I'm not saying that EITHER side has a monopoly on smart people, but I will point out that the hallowed halls of academia are disproportinately populated by leftish utopians, who have never really had to work outside the Ivory Tower. Coincidence? To believe that such people *don't* have some sort of axe to grind is folly itself.

Nobel noble.

Part of this is the media, who seem to think that success in a given field means that somehow that equates into expertise in everything else - otherwise why would people even LISTEN to the political pronouncements of hollywood stars?

A physicist might be hyper-brilliant in their field, but that no more qualifies her or him to adjudicate the *use* of nuclear weapons, for example, than the pin-setter at the local bowling alley.

Re:Who to believe?

[fireduck]

the scientists. at least they use footnotes so you can look up their sources and come to your own conclusion.

The Bush administration repeately hides things: who was on Cheney's energy panel, how much is budgeted for the war in Iraq, the true cost of the medicare bill, the amount of jobs to be created in the upcoming year. this list could go on. (and we won't get started on how we knew exactly how many tons of which chemicals and how many warheads, and exactly where a number of facilities were, and when we got there, we can't find a single one of them).

Scientists may be biased, but you can check their bias by following their citations. with politicians you can't. (Cheney is still trying to link Saddam to terrorism, even though everyone, including the President, has acknowledged that no conclusive link existed. where is Cheney getting his info from?)

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

That's a tautology. Your reasoning - the scientists are releasing a scientific paper. Their conclusions have political ramifications. Therefore they are making a political statement.

The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad. Scientific facts are not political. They just exist.

By your reasoning, every textbook about evolution is a "political statement". Obviously, because there are politicians who disagree with it, it must be a political statement.

Re:Who to believe?

[jfengel]

Sadly, "some research of your own" is very difficult to do. The environment is very big, and studying it requires a lot of equipment and very complicated mathematics. I'm not qualified to do that research, and neither is 99.999% of the world.

Worse, I'm not even really qualified to listen to both sides of the argument and make my own decision. That would be true even if one side, or both, weren't deliberately skewing the data their way. I'm not saying that they are. I'm saying that without vast effort, I can't tell.

That's why we have representative democracy. I don't have to know this stuff, but I put my faith in some representative to tell. Actually, he can't tell either: neither Bush nor my senator nor my representative is qualified to make these decisions. But each of them has science advisors, and _they_ are qualified, or are at least qualified to judge the researchers.

I wish I had a stronger connection to this: the guy who makes the decision is appointed by a guy who I had a very small part in electing. Or worse, some guy I voted against.

So the people who vote aren't expected to judge the issue. They're expected to judge the character of the politician, and whether he will appoint honest and knowledgable advisors. You can research any issue until you're blue in the face, but the other side will counter with seven people who have more expertise, more qualifications, and more time spent on the issue.

Oh, I wish I had a philosopher-king around to do this stuff. But I don't. And in the meantime, "trust" is going to be an operative word in any decisions that get made. As Winston Churchill said, "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all those others that have been tried."

I will make up my opinion based on as much research as I can do, and I'll vote for a man (or woman) based on that judgment, along with a dozen others. It sucks that I get the same representative for science, labor, privacy, law enforcement, and many other issues, but there you are.

Re:Who to believe?

[caseydk]

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.

Do you have any numbers to describe how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by humans every year?

Do you have any numbers to describe how much CO2 is released into the atmosphere by nature every year?

Now you have to compare the two. Which one is larger? Is the smaller one of significant size compared to the larger one?

I think your "at an alarming rate" is a meaningless statement. I'm not disputing that climate change happens. It happened when the dinosaurs were wiped out.... and mammals took over.

There will be climate change. We can't prevent that without fundamentally changing how the Earth has changed over the past.

Re:Who to believe?

[Cyberherbalist]

"...if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates." Oh, sure. "Trust us, we're scientists." "The noble pursuit of science." The notion that scientists are completely objective is a very shaky one at best. The "Concerned" in UCS is a red-flag in any case. Anyone who comes to me and claims to be a "concerned citizen" is immediately suspect as anything but "disinterested". Besides, it was Nobel-class scientists who said Alfred Wegener's theory of continental drift was complete nonsense. That said, I wouldn't trust them implicitly if they said that the Bush administration's policies were OK. I don't trust the Bush administration, either. I expect the scientists and the politicians to be completely biased and untrustworthy until proven otherwise.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

Well, as a scientist who is a lifetime registered independent and who's point of view is at least unbiased enough that I have been attacked on Slashdot as a flag waving, right wing, conservative neonazi, capitalist pig, America right or wrong type and a politically correct, commie pinko, marxist cant spouting anticapitalist lacky. . .for the same bloody post, I can at least put forward my observations:

These scientists may well have a political bias in attacking the Bush administration, but it isn't necessary. You could attack any administration for exactly the same thing.

Science is in a deplorable state, not just in America, but nearly everywhere, do to being so heavily influenced and outright directed by politics that even many scientists are unaware of it. Poorly trained in colleges that have been so embued with "political" science many of them can't even recognize a valid scientific methodology from an invalid one, and not a few now overtly claim that such isn't even necessary, that truth is the pragmatic.

And they still call themselves scientists.

War is Peace, brother.

Newspeak is completely destroying science and admiting fields into the fold for civil and academic political purposes which have little to no scientific basis at all.

The issue isn't the Bush administration. The issue is administration. And there are damned few "scientists" these days who even have the knowledge, let alone the guts, to stand up to it.

It's not good for recieving grants and tenure. In some places it's not good for staying out of jail, and I don't mean in China.

The situation is deplorable.

That's my opinion as a scientist.

Tomorrow I shall return to my usual Slashdot rant about how business has devolved college education to a tradeschool for the uneducatable.

Please tune in.

This has been a broadcast of the Old Curmudgeon Network. Slashdot editors are not responsible for my posted views. They've got enough troubles supporting their own.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[mnmn]

"a majority of the American people have granted them that trust"

49.99% is not a majority.

Re:Who to believe?

[FooGoo]

This report is simply an attempt to inform the general public about what's been happening.

The general public with never read this study. They will read about it on /., the Sydney Morning Hearald, the New York Times, and the Guardian. And as we all know those are totally unbiased sources of information.

Re:Who to believe?

[Xzzy]

> Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion?

At some point, that's not a feasible suggestion. With the glut of information that is readily available these days, there has got to be a point where such a system will break down. There are only so many hours in a day available. Jokes about pounding reload on slashdot all day aside, even if one studied 24 hours a day there's no way they could keep up on a fraction of the issues that are plauging this world.

At some point, some of the information you recieve will have to be distilled down to sound bites that come from a third party. You will HAVE to put some amount of trust in someone to do it fairly.

And these days, I'd be more inclined to listen to nobel winners than the bush administration. ;)

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

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, you should check yours. You are obviously very misinformed if you believe that it is only a theory that organisms change over time (i.e., through evolution). The "theory" refers to scientists trying to explain the available *facts*. If you believe that organisms do not evolve over time, you discard radioactive dating, archaeology, paleontology, biology, and many other ologies too numerous to name.

Evolution happened. That is a scientific fact. The *theory* is trying to explain how it occured.

Re:Who to believe?

[tc]

What has left-wing versus right-wing got to do with scientific questions like: are we fucking up the environment?

Regardless of your personal political leanings, why would you want to ignore scientific evidence that we're destroying the planet? The only explanations I can think of are:

(1) You get political funding from Big Oil.

(2) You are uncomfortable with the logical consequences of taking appropriate action, and since you don't want to think of yourself as being anti-environment, it's easier to just convince yourself that your 16MPG SUV isn't really doing any harm.

Why would someone want to believe that we're ruining the planet? It doesn't serve either left-wing or right-wing ideology. The only reason to believe that is because the evidence tell us so.

Re:Who to believe?

[Jim Starx]

Yes it is a political statement. I think what everyones discussing is, is it a politically motivated statement?

Re:Who to believe?

[Syowr]

Um I haven't checked out each of the scientsts on the list but they cover a MASSIVE range of scientific fields. Overall it would seem difficult to find a MORE qualified group of individuals to speak on "the state of science in our government"

Pray tell who would you ask for opinions on this, if not the scientists at the top of these scientific fields?

This isnt a hollywood star saying they think Bush is making crap up and playing with some results. These are the people who are making this science happen every day.

Facts are not partisan and its shameful that they could be construed as such.

Re:Who to believe?

[DeltaSigma]

Is this conversation serious? Are we really arguing about whether or not a particular group might be more politically motivated than a group of politicians?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You must not be a scientist, or are perhaps a poorly trained one. The word "evolution" subsumes both a process and the observable data to support it. Evolution is a proposed mechanism of changes in organisms over time. It is a fact THAT this change occurs, but the role of mutation, dominance of adaptive traits, etc., can only be said to have very strong support. These aren't "facts". Scientists are naturally reluctant to throw out this word because it tends to stifle future research on a topic.

After all, I can't see beyond the horizon, so given the available data, it is a FACT the world is flat! :)

Re:Who to believe?

[680x0]

Some of the most blindingly leftist people I know are otherwise quite bright

So, the smart people you know have "left" political leanings? Maybe this should tell you something. Has it occurred to you that they are correct, and you are wrong? I suggest you ask them who you should vote for this fall, and follow their advice.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article, the scientists in question are not trying to influence politics, but trying to keep from politicians from influencing their research.

Re:Who to believe?

[Grayputer]

PLEASE. Let's back up. Science believed (at one point) that the Earth was the center of the universe. Data gathered scientifically is probably correct but conclusions drawn from that data are conclusions not scientific fact. Conclusions are subject to bias. As an example, if I take data from just after the last ice age and measure the climatic change I'm quite sure I'll see 'global warming', scientific fact, the temperature is increasing over time. The conclusion that it is a direct result of the pesty humans and the fires they build in their caves is conclusion. Even if I add several other pieces of evidence to the pot, it is still conclusion. Admittedly as the pieces of evidence accumulate the conclusion becomes more likely (or unlikely) but without a direct chain of uninterpeted data evidence (which almost never occurs) it is never 'sure'. Newtonian physics was a 'sure thing' until quantum mechanics.

Mathematics is about the only 'scientific' field that can claim theories (or theorems) are either provably correct or incorrect and even in math the bulk of the interesting stuff is 'unknown'.

Re:Who to believe?

[bluenawab]

people concerned about global warming aren't trying to "fight" climate change, they just want to make sure that we dont accelerate it. and yes one comet is all it takes to wipe out life, that doesnt mean that we should stop our efforts to prevent degradation of the environment

Re:Who to believe?

[scrytch]

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.

No one but trolls and "intelligent design" kooks throw out this canard any more. Actual scientists call it an actual observed phenomenom. Whether you want to call it a "fact" or a "theory backed up by emperical observation" is up to you. Technically YOU only "theoretically" exist unless you've got some kind of cosmic theorem prover that goes beyond A=A (wow I managed to insult both creationists AND randroids). ...rest of obvious trolling deleted. Gee wiz, I guess we haven't invented test, observation, and measurement to come up with any numbers.

Re:Who to believe?

[cavehobbit]

Having a Phd in one area of study and a prize does not equate to either non-partisanship or expertise in any other area of study.

Pat Robertson has a Phd. I wouldn't trust his opinions on scientific subjects.

Would you want a Phd Nobel laureate in theoretical physics performing your next surgery?

Be wary of those that argue from authority, or use titles as a shield or a weapon.

Tom

Re:Who to believe?

[broter]

...is it a politically motivated statement?

Who cares? The question I care about is: is it good science? Let them be the most politically blind people on earth, but if the data supports their paper, then I'll believe it.

Re:Who to believe?

[duffbeer703]

You cannot believe the scientists blindly, because the bread and butter of big science in Federal funds.

The real answer is probaly something more like the Bush administration is spending more on military and aerospace projects than biological and weather projects.

Ever wonder why all of the sudden seemingly credible scientists are making Art Bell a credible news source?? Congress is more likely to fund a program that can save the planet from a weather catastrophe than a bunch of nerds who want to study tidal and wind patterns.

If the scientists had avoided sucking on the government teat in the first place, they wouldn't be worried about the political process messing with their funding. They would also be researching things with actual commercial applications instead of designing the next stealth bomber or bomb detector.

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

The "facts" of science are really just the observations.

That goes without saying.

The number of Nobel laureates is mentioned specifically to induce the reaction that you are having. The majority of voters are laypeople who are incapable of understanding the science, but who can (and do) parse the word "Nobel" to mean "trustworthy."

1) There's nothing wrong with my reaction being predictable even if that's the intention of their document. That shouldn't automatically mean that their report is full of lies. Sure, it might warrant skepticism, but my obvious response doesn't automatically discredit this document.

2) I really doubt that this is going to change the election. I really doubt that the average lay person will even know this report exists. If anything, only intellectuals and scientists will take any interest in such a report. Needless to say, I'm sure they will be more critical when parsing this report.

Lastly, I believe their prestige is on the line. Scientists reputations are built on the papers they put out there. If Nobel Laureates start putting on purely biased papers with little, no, or fallacious scientific evidence they will surely be shunned and silently discredited by their colleagues. I suppose this is where we disagree.

Re:Who to believe?

[gowen]

We can't predict how much rain there'll be one week from now, but we can predict the temperature to within one degree a century from now?

Imagine I throw a baseball towards you at 90mph? Can you predict how long it will take to reach you, with a reasonable degree of accuracy? Course you can -- some people can even do it accurately and quickly enough to hit the ball with a bat.

Can you predict the exact location of an individual atom in that baseball? Can you predict the motion of an individual Nitrogen molecule thats in the baseball's path as it passes through its turbulent wake?

MORAL : Sometimes, broad general predictions, are more accurate than extremely specific ones.

Re:Who to believe?

[Tiroth]

The core argument is not that the political decision differs from the conclusion reached by the scientists; they acknowedge that public policy is based on more than scientific facts:

The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective.

Rather, the argument is that the Bush administration is distorting or suppressing the basic facts in order to make their political decision seem grounded in science. There is a difference in saying

1. It will cost too much money to make water 1% cleaner, saving 10 lives per year, so in the balance it isn't worth it.
2. Falsifying a report to say making the water 1% cleaner won't save any lives, so we shouldn't do it.

We are forced to make decisions like #1 all the time, because the fact is that there is not enough money or resources in the world to make everything perfect--not to mention that there are often competing interests. However, the congressmen and women making the decisions, as well as the public they represent, has a right to know the basis for those decisions.

Re:Who to believe?

[680x0]

Maybe the "otherwise" was unclear?

No, it was quite clear. Quite clearly the result of denial on your part. If someone is correct on everything outside of politics, the likelihood of them also being right on politics is greater than yours. Clearly.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rostin]

I think you missed the point/didn't respond to most of what I wrote. First, I said, "Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report," referring to the reaction it is intended to have. And actually, now that I think a little harder about it, I think I was wrong because: Second, I pointed out twice (I think) that the real issue here is POLICY and not science (The science is established, they are just complaining that it is being mishandled). The credentials of these men as scientists has little to do with their policy-making savvy, and it is somewhat dishonest to pump up their opinions because they are experts in unrelated fields. (It's possible some of them are political scientists. If so, I take this back.) Also because of this, the prestige of these scientists as scientists is not on the line. I don't think peer-reviewed journals will stop accepting your articles because you have stupid political views.

Re:Who to believe?

[kisak]

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

As far as I understand it, the scientists are actually protesting against being pulled into the political prosess like this. The scientists reacts against becoming a tool in the political power game. They want to be able to do science that is independent of who-ever is president at any moment -- which is a basic right in any free country -- also the USA. The political statement is that they want politics out of their daily work.

Scientist are protesting what seems to be important to this administration is not that good science is done, but that the right conclusions are reported and "reached" from "science". Conclusions that happen to support current policies. This is an unacceptable interference by politicians into scientific institutions and work.

Science has earned its good name by being extremeely self critical and showing again and again to the public that their predictions are worth listening too. If scientists are caught making blunders or publishing deliberate misleading results, they will be punished by peers in the field, loss of private and government funding, and by the public perception (their source of future students) about that university or that scientific group. Of course, government plays it role in this process through funding (and by controlling nominations to "scientific panels").

It has of course been tempting for politicans for the last hundreds of years in different countries and settings to use the credibility scientist have build up to force through policies that current accepted scientific theories does not support. But it is a very dangerous path to go down, even if the administration strongly believe they know what is best (and even can be right in some cases).

What the Noble laurates have signed, is not about any particular policies, but the general freedom from political pressure to publish and present what is the current accepted scientific view. Then the politicians can defend or form their policies without pretending that the current scientific views in fact are something else.

To mention a (controversial) example, the current accepted scientific view is that global warming is real. Then we can start to discuss if Kyoto is a good idea or not. Or we can even discuss if sciencists in general are actually worth listening to (we should maybe trust the Bible instead), but that is different to claiming that the current accepted scientific view is something else.

And yes, you are right, the current scientific view about any subject can change in the future. And there are alway scientist that challenge the current view. But that is what science is all about, and this is how science evolves.

Re:Who to believe?

[michael_cain]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

One is also tempted to ask the question, "Does a Nobel prize in one field of specialization qualify one to make informed judgements in other fields?" Of course, the answer is sometimes yes, sometimes no. History has a sizable number of examples of Nobel and other award winners making asses of themselves in other fields. What qualifies (with no disrespect intended) a prize-winner for physics working on the behavior of small groups of atoms at temperatures near absolute zero to judge policy on global warming and its consequences on a regional biosphere?

Re:Who to believe?

[Ichijo]

Have you ever tried to get 5 PHD's, much less 20, to agree on anything before? I think you don't understand the scientific process.

That's an example of observational selection, and argument from authority. In other words, 20 Ph.D's may have agreed, but who knows how many Ph.D's in the world would disagree?

Also, we don't know the makeup of the group. With its liberal bias, the group could be composed entirely of Democrats. This would make it easier to come to an agreement on anything.

Re:Who to believe?

[Scrameustache]

Oh, sure. "Trust us, we're scientists."

Yeah, I mean, politicians are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to science than scientists...pffft, what do they know?

Re:Who to believe?

[|/|/|||]

Further, are we really in the area of science, any more? Aren't these scientists actually criticizing policy? "The science says this, and so the policy should say that!"

You read the article wrong - they're saying: "The science says this, so the science should say this!"
Instead, the "science" being presented by the Bush administration says something else. Most likely on purpose.

This "science" is being used to justify policy, which is the point at which politics comes in.

Re:Who to believe?

[2marcus]

Look at: http://www.2think.org/keeling_curve.shtml

(I also posted this elsewhere for someone else's comment)

You can clearly see the seasonal effect of biomass uptake (the sinusoidal squiggles). You can also see that there is a long-term trend. It is INDISPUTABLE that the long term trend is due to human emissions. NO REAL SCIENTIST, not even climate skeptics like S. Fred Singer, Lindzen, or Christy dispute the human emissions -> CO2 concentration increase link.

If you want to dispute the CO2 concentration -> significant warming link, there would at least be an interesting argument there. I think it is mostly settled, but that is where the room for more science lies.

(ok, there is some room for science in CO2 uptake: crossing ts and dotting is, and especially in predicting future uptake: will the oceans absorb less if it is warmer, will ecosystems absorb more with higher CO2 concentrations, etc.)

And to link to the main topic: the Bush league really enjoys manipulating the science on this issue. EPA reports, NAS reports, they are all buried when they say there is a good chance that global warming will be a significant problem. And don't get me started on Senator Inhofe's global warming speech, where he selectively picks quotes from reputable global warming scientists, including my advisor, to try and claim that they backed up his view, when they would never agree with him in a hundred years...

-Marcus

Re:Who to believe?

[CaptainCarrot]

I'm sorry, but if you don't think that academics are fierce and dirty politicians, then you have either not spent enough time in academia to see it, or you haven't been paying attention. The political maneuvering that happens at academic institutions is far more vicious than most anything that happens in Washington.

Re:Who to believe?

[BorgCopyeditor]

The difference is that they're presenting evidence, instead of, say, deciding U.S. energy policy behind closed doors and purposefully excluding any non-industry sources.

Re:Who to believe?

[EvilTwinSkippy]

As a Taoist I take umbrage at that.

Ahem, Tautology is:

Needless repetition of the same sense in different words; redundancy. b. An instance of such repetition. 2. Logic An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false; for example, the statement Either it will rain tomorrow or it will not rain tomorrow.

What you are describing is a fallicy.

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

>You're evading the real issue - I know with 100% certainty that the earth is orbiting the sun RIGHT NOW.

Have you looked out the window? :P

>Once again, you ignore what I say and cling to your logical fallacy. The following is NOT a proof:

> 1)Long held theories are sometimes regarded as facts.
Yep.
> 2)Sometimes long held theories are disproven
Yep. There is a reason for that.
> 3)There are no facts whatsoever.
Scientific method, you know, the technique used by real scientists to invent amazing things such as computers, has at its core the assumption that a theory, no matter how long standing, is still just a theory. Why? because it is impossible to prove thier correctness. They are "the best we can do". To describe such a theory as an absolute fact is disingenious. Does that mean these theories have no use? Most definatly not. The reason they persist is their utility.

And Im not talking philosophy here.

Within a bounded system, such as mathematics, facts can exist. However the system itself is based on underlying assumption. So the facts are also based on the underlying assuptions. They are facts but they exist only within the defined framework.

Papers do contain the word "fact". Generally it is used either in the negative (That is factually incorrect) most often within closed systems such as mathmatics when a disproof is found. Or in the colloquial sense (The fact that this is the case is because...)

matfud

Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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.

Uh huh..

[grub]

"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.

I don't understand...

[enderanjin]

Why are there 20 Nobel prize winners who can refute our findings, while we have an oaf as our head science guy?

This just in...

[LordK2002]

Politicians distort the truth.

Nothing to see here, move along...

K

Re:Independent?

[logophage]

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.

big biz

[seriv]

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.

industry influence

[angryelephant]

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?

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[markbark]

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?

Re:Marburger says...

[vondo]

Yes, this struck me too. But, hey, he's a politician. When you don't want to answer the question asked, answer the one you have a prepared answer for.

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[SparafucileMan]

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.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really think that if Bush/Cheney were voted in for 10 years rather than 4, that would make them ~more~ likely to do things for the good of the nation?

Think how they would act if they knew they couldn't be touched for another 6 years.

Re:WMD?

[proj_2501]

Pakistan is not really that hostile (except to India) and they are MUSLIM not ARABIC.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[frankie]

same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84

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.

Why letters like this are important

[Anonymous Coward]

"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.

From the astronomy angle...

[DirtyJ]

Science under the Bush adminstration is troubling indeed. Recently we've heard talk of reallocating the bulk of NASA's budget toward going to Mars. This is both half-hearted and doomed to failure since most people realize that hundreds of billions of dollars will be required. Suggesting modest budgetary increases for the program, plus sucking essentially all of NASA's space science money into a manned Mars mission is asinine. Killing off space science will result in much, much more harm to astronomical progress than will be offset by going to Mars.

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.

Re:WMD?

[Unordained]

... then we suddenly become friends, try to get Pakistan and India to stop fighting, and just help us find pesky little suspects in a certain bombing.

Ever notice how quickly Musharraf went from being a naughty man to being a leader who needed our support against his own population, when they disagree with him? It'd be like suddenly backing Iran's leaders just because we want something from them.

Oh, wait, we supported the Taliban? Hmmm. Weird.

So yes. Once a country gets nukes, it gets admitted into the super-non-secret-circle-of-friends-with-nukes. MAD indeed. We want to keep some nations from getting nukes precisely because they know that having them will suddenly gain them this undeserved (but necessary?) respect. N. Korea wasn't liked. If it were to get nukes, we'd suddenly be expected to deal with it as an equal. That hurts our ego.

[no karma bonus]

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[JeanBaptiste]

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)

Demon Haunted World

[rjelks]

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

Re:Demon Haunted World

[rjelks]

I think it all boils down to critical thinking. Too many people seem to believe any information source they come across. I don't think everyone needs to become specialists in a scientific field, but just think for themselves a bit more. I guess with so much information at our fingertips, it's hard to sift through the FUD. -

Stop overstating your case...

[LostCluster]

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...

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Struct]

The problem is, had Bush stuck to what he knew was true, there would never have been popular support for a war against Iraq. He did overinflate the information, but he did it intentionally to stir up support he would have otherwise lacked. Whether or not he did the right thing is up for a considerable amount of debate, but that he did it for the wrong reasons is certainly true, and it has become exceedingly apparent over the last month or two.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[happyfrogcow]

put people in office for 1 year, and they should get right to work and not have time to worry about the election. Let actions speak. Put people in office for 10 years and the public will forget all the wrongs of the first 6 years when it come time to vote. Nothing is perfect, 4 years is a good time. Long enough to let them try things out, short enough that if they screw up we don't forget about those screwups.

No research experience for you...

[Explodo]

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.

bias doesn't make them wrong though...

[rbird76]

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.

Re:Data is always open to interpretation

[LostCluster]

But that's not exactly what this group is claiming. They're not questioning the final decisions the Bush Administration has made, but claiming that invalid science is being used to back up the decisions, essentially using bad science as a cover story because if they stated the real reason, it might not be accepted by the public as easily.

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Do not fear. That whooshing noise is just the sound of a reference passing miles over your head

Re:It is truly a shame

[madMingusMax]

I think you mean "Right-wing" .

This is the same administration who has essentially trampled your civil liberties as well.
This is the same administration who have turned a $200billion surplus into a $700billion deficit.
This is the same administration who wants to remove Evolution from schools and teach Creationism.
This is the same administration who thinks that abstience is the only topic which needs to be discussed in Sexual Education.

What's trampling over the scientific process?

Re:Interesting...

[FooGoo]

It's not flaimbait. It's the truth. You all rant about how the big bad corporations have undue influence over the government but yet you ignore the fact the organizations like the the UCS are funded by another big money group. Unions. I guess what Sun Tzu said is true. The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

Re:of course he did

[Pave Low]

How does having '20 highly acclaimed scientists say you are wrong' automatically mean you are wrong?

Scientists once said Galileo, Copernicus, and Einstein were wrong too.

But when it comes to the religion of Global Warming, and The Environment, dissenting views are marginalized, and the dissenters demonized.

You really mean that these scientists are biased towards their own scientific truth, and hostile to any others.

Re:Well.. think about it.

[MoneyT]

Beleiving in lead poisoning is far different from believing OMG WE"RE ALL GONNA DIE FROM LEAD!!!!.

Just like Asbestos. I can believe it had harmful effects, but lets' be real, asbestos was only dangerous in particle form, and made a great heat shield, but we can't use it anymore cause if you eat it you get cancer.

Here's a thought: DON"T EAT IT!

Political

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Scientists have agendas too...

[mtrupe]

Is it all that hard to realize that so called "scientists" may have agendas as well?

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[Anonymous Coward]

Speak the truth on slashdot, get modded down as troll. This place is a pathetic joke... A bunch of sheltered idiots who think they know something.

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[theghost]

RTFA moron. They are not accusing the Bush administration of causing environmental problems. They are accusing the Bush administration of suppressing scientific studies that don't support their goals and of padding scientific advisory boards with industry shills.

Re:An advantage of a dual system

[October_30th]

What I really like in the UK system is the Prime Minister has to be able to defend his/her policies in the Parliament.

I am not particularly fond of Rt. Hon. Tony Blair's policies, but I can appreciate how he defends them in public.

US is like the roman empire

[superpulpsicle]

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.

ROFL - yeah, do your own research

[gosand]

The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

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.

Re:A couple more data points

[pcraven]

A lot of this has to do with impacts of the administration on research. People without advanced degrees typically do not go through the pain of submitting to peer-reviewed research journals.

I would compare it to a petition that only asks professional software developers to sign, rather than hobbiests. Yes, the hobbiests may understand computers, but the people who develop software for a living would carry more weight on a petition about software development. No insult intended to the hobbiests.

Re:A degree huh?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science isn't democratic. I'd far rather trust a report that had been signed by 20 Nobel laureates than one signed by 20,000 random visitors.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[deacon]

from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction"

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...

Re:of course he did

[strike2867]

John Marburger is no Galileo, Coprenicus or Einstein. Look at his resume. He got a PhD in physics, but never actually did anything in that field afterwards. All he did was sit on comitees. He is not qualified to disagree with scientists who got Nobel Prizes. Galileo, Coprenicus, and Einstein had volumes of work, he sits on his ass and makes managerial dicisions.

Re:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[logophage]

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.

Hmm

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Just the facts, please

[zigzag]

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.

Re:Independent?

[Bun]

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.

So does that make the DGSE (French Secret Service) counter-ecoterrorists, or just plain old criminals?

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.

Unless

[Libertarian_Geek]

Just a possibility:
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 /. 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.

Re:Unless

[FreshFunk510]

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.

Exactly. I couldn't agree anymore.

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.

This is very true. However your talk borders upon a "conspiracy theory", imho. Why? Common sense. 1) My guess is that Nobel Laureates, in general, don't have trouble getting funding for anythign they want to do (because of their reputation). 2) I know that funding for science is pretty stable even in these hard fiscal times. 3) I also assume that most Nobel Laureates have and feel this responsbility to report on science in an unbiased, scientific-method type of manner (yes, yes, i know they are all not like that but I'm going with probability here).

The truth is that in these kind of situation, as in many, you can always say "What if...". At some point you have to choose what you want to believe, who you want to trust and what you will accept as "fact" (or more truth than lies). No one has the time to verify everything that they read. If I did that, I'd never get through the day's paper. But you establish a sort of mental "% of reliability" according to your experience with that newspaper, periodical, reporter, scientist, think tank, etc. And in this case I'd trust a paper signed by 20 difference Nobel Laureates knowing how difficult it is to obtain one and how respected the award is (and the fact that the award is awarded by other scientists, not arbitrary people).

Re:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[mapmaker]

They are luddites plain and simple.

No, they're politicians plain and simple. They don't really believe creationism is a valid science, but they need to pander to the ignorant voters that do. Bible-thumpin', science-hatin' fundamentalists are a large part of the Republican base and must be pandered to in order to keep them from voting for Pat Buchanan.

Re:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[drooling-dog]

In the middle ages it was easy to justify the absurd by using religion. Now it's science.

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.

Re:Independent?

[Phillup]

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?

Re:Independent?

[Experiment 626]

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:

1. Examine the Bush Administration policies in question for their own scientific merit.
2. Consider any factors other than science that may have influenced the policy, such as special interest lobbying, budget concerns, or the will of the voters, who may collectively prefer a solution that is not the best from a strict scientific perspective but must be respected in a democracy.
3. Examine the counterarguments to the Bush Administration policy put forth by these scientists.
4. Consider any other reasons besides science that they may have reached these conclusions. Are they affiliated with the Democratic party? How about special interest lobbies such as environmentalists or trial lawyers that stand to gain from having the Administration's policies refuted? In short, beyond looking at the arguments at face value as was done in the step above, consider the angle or agenda it is coming from.
5. Having considered all these things, make up your own damn mind. Form an educated and informed opinon about the matter.

No, step #4 is not a "severe deficiency in logical thinking", but rather an important component of rational thought.

Re:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[22mcdaniel]

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...

Re:He was our University President

[thebatlab]

Who modded this as offtopic? What the hell is wrong with you? A man described how the president's science advisor, who was directly mentioned in the article, used to be President of a university and how he seemed to be a nice guy. And someone thinks it's offtopic? What the hell article were you reading? Pull your head out and quit modding things down and work on modding the good posts up. I know, it's more fun to criticize, right? Makes you feel real big. Try complimenting for once rather than cutting down. You might be surprised at how better it feels and how much better people react to you as well.

Kudos to the other mods who gave him points.

You need to be more of a skeptic

[HarveyBirdman]

While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[jtosburn]

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.

Since /. loves analogies, here's one for you:

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.

OK

[HarveyBirdman]

Bush got into Harvard and Yale through connections.

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.

Re:there are two ideas under the word "evolution"

[caseydk]

There are two separate ideas that fall under the name "evolution."

Yes, you are correct.

In simplified terms, there is micro-evolution and macro-evolution.

Micro-evolution is quite simple to see. Some people have cited insects becoming resistant to pesticides and other simple things along those lines. Small changes that happen in a population and propogate.

Macro-evolution is the transition of one species into another species. Articles referenced here only discuss archeoptryx (sp?) as one such transitional species. But one single instance of something is NOT proof.

So called "Conclusive" proof such as Lucy, the Piltdown Man and others have been thouroughly repudiated, are there others that I'm missing?

Re:Independent?

[Lendrick]

...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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[raytracer]

This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.

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.

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

I didn't get this one at first, but Google saves the day.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[aborchers]

Well considering that only one of the examples had anything to do with christian moral issues, I don't think it is fair to jump to that conclusion.

You aren't new here. You should know that slams against religion, Microsoft, and SCO are always fair game for jumping to conclusions on slashdot... ;-)

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Imperator]

Yes, but... it's not just that Bush is stupid. It's that in his administration, politics rules over everything else. Policy exists only so far as it serves politics, and never the other way around. There are plenty of intelligent people in the administration, but they put politics above policy, above science, above the welfare of the country, and so on. It's ugly, but politically it seems to work.

Re:UCS isn't exactly an unbiased organization...

[radish]

-UCS invested significant resources in "a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly." Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it's supposed to kill.

And the USDA and EPA can't possibly be wrong? Please. This is a purely scientific question - "do these modified crops pose a risk to the larger ecosystem?" If a large group of very emminent scientists are not qualified to make comment on this then who the hell is? And just because another couple of groups of scientists (with the government as their paymasters) disagree, does that invalidate their viewpoint? Of course not.

Re:of course he did

[ChaosDiscord]

He is not qualified to disagree with scientists who got Nobel Prizes.

Everyone is qualified to disagree with scientists who got Nobel prizes. It's a bad idea to set qualifications on disagreeing, it just creates a pedastool of beliefs considered too sacred to challege. All beliefs should be challenged. I just recommend having really done your research, otherwise you're going to get your ass handed to you by people who actually know what they're talking about. The defense against uninformed opinion is informed opinion, not silencing the uninformed opinion.

Re:WMD?

[radish]

No, Pakistan is NOT an Arabic nation. They don't speak Arabic, and their descendency is from the Indian sub-continental populations, not those of the Arabian gulf. They are no more Arabic than Germany or Switzerland.

Let's get this straight - "Muslim" generally means followers of the Islamic faith - Pakistan fits this description. It has nothing to do with descendency, language, geographic location or anything else. "Arabic" means descended from the people of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc - based around the Gulf. It has nothing to do with religon. Most Arabic nations also have Arabic as (one of) their language(s). Many Arabic nations are also officially Muslim, but there is no causal link there.

The number of times I see people on here confusing really simple concepts like this sickens me. Ignorance is not a virtue.

Re:A special interest group

[Qzukk]

Your point being? The Wired article quotes people in the administration who seem to indicate that the events that the UCS claim to have happened did in fact take place. Of the lead analysis panel: "I'm sure there were other reasons for the change". Other reasons indeed.

The fact is, Bush's Administration is undergoing a major credibility crisis. Excising scientific research is not how to go about fixing it.

Fact or fiction

[Iowaguy]

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

Re:Fact or fiction

[EvilTwinSkippy]

That is a great argument. History is full of them.

Now, however compelling that "answer" may be, it doesn't justify our rampantly altering the environment. Amoung your "background" data you have to also take into effect how deforestation (on a scale that can be seen from space mind you) affects CO2 production and absorbtion. You should also take into affect the sheer volume of carbon dioxide, not to mention waste heat, that is produced by cars, power production, and industry.

Even if it turns out we are wrong about CO2 being a cause of global warming, the fact of the matter is human beings are radically altering the world around us and climate change is all but inevitable.

Unfortunately many predictions of where we are headed point to a world in which our way of life can not be sustained. Whether CO2, or methane, or asphalt reflectivity are to blame, when you are in a hole the first rule is to stop digging.

Re:Nothing to see here

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the online Meriam Webster dictionary, "Nukular" is an acceptable pronounciaton of the word "Nuclear". It still bugs me, though.

You bringing Gore into the convo is irrelavent.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:"Majority..."

[F34nor]

Also remeber that the job of government in a democracy is to protect the minority from the will of the majority.

IAAS (I Am A Scientist)

[caveat]

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.

Re:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[datababe72]

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.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[theghost]

For now, let's assume (wrong or wrong) that Gore is 100 times dumber than Bush. That still doesn't mean he would subvert science like Bush's administration has. Intelligent != ethical.

At any rate, Gore really has nothing to do with this. If you want to make a comparison that matters, tell me how Kerry, Edwards, or even Dean have been misused or suppressed science to further their political goals like Bush has.

Our alternative is not Gore because we can't go back and change the past. (No matter how much we want to.) Our alternatives are the guys that are going to be running in November, 2004.

Unions of Americans

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

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?

Re:USSR tried bad science, it failed...

[mikerich]

Evolution doesn't even follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes it does, unfortunately there is a fallacy regarding the second law of thermodynamics which is often used by creationists.

The second law of thermodynamics states that left to itself, the entropy (that is the amount of disorder) in a closed system can never decrease. Rooms get untidy, a cup of coffee cools down and heats the room and so on...

There are two important parts of the law that are forgotten by creationists:

1. That the system is left to itself, and;
2. That it is a closed system.

It means that you can tidy a disorganised house apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics. All your shelves are neatly organised, the floor positively sparkles - order has been created from disorder. BUT to do that, you have had to use some energy and will have dumped unrecoverable heat into the wider environment.

Organisms are not closed systems, they are local pieces of order. They take in raw materials, use it to increase the amount of local order and dump heat energy into the wider environment.

The total amount of entropy in the Universe has increased, but locally it has decreased. The total amount of usable energy has decreased, the total amount of entropy has increased.

No contravention of the second law.

Best wishes,
Mike.

So you also "heard it on the internet"

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Not the issue

[OwnedByTwoCats]

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.

Except Vin Cerf, who is the (one of the) fathers of the internet, gives Gore credit for making the internet what it is today. Goree provided the pull in Congress and in the Clinton Administration that enabled the grants to fund the research that built the internet.

Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[cryptochrome]

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[RayBender]

Do you honestly think Russia can build enough decoy ICBMs to counter the number of interceptors we could assemble?

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[RayBender]

Those only work once the warheads have seperated from the launch vehicle. The solution? Target the launch vehicle *before* the warheads deploy.

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.

Missing the point

[hey!]

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.

Censure != Censorship

[prestidigital]

I think you are getting your terms mixed up:

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."

scientists and politicians

[gnosticus]

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.

Meet the New Religious Fanatics: Science As God

[kemkerj]

How very interesting that concepts of God and Gospel have been replaced by Science.

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 /. 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 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.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[grannyknot]

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.

Get over yourselves.

[HeridFel]

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?

Politicization of "the race concept"

[Baldrson]

NAS member Harry Harpending writes:

There is a lot of visible denunciation of "the race concept", but when anyone is forced to say what the race concept is it invariably comes out sounding like species. It is all word play. The answer is a number, that number is about 1/8, and all the rest is word salad and sophistry.

Boyd and Silk ought to know better, but then again genetics is not their specialty. And Venter! We sequence a single genome and announce that there are no race differences: my little kid can figure out that that makes no sense.

In fairness to the genome jocks, we have to remember that they consume a lot of grant money and that the minute anyone starts crying racism they are at risk of losing that funding.

A colleague last week described a meeting at NIH where a prominent genome jock stood up and said humans were all the same, race differences were insignificant, and so on. My colleage said he "had a tear in his eye, one hand on his heart, and his other hand on his wallet".

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[MrResistor]

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).

Re:Leaded gasoline has a mixed story

[grannyknot]

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.

The only thing that "destroyed Detroit" was competition from foreign (notably Japanese) car manufacturers. It was the completely inbred "we are the best car companies in the world because we are American car companies" mentality that made the car industry lethargic and slow to respond to market factors (such as the energy crisis in the 1970s).

The only thing that cost American auto workers their jobs was the industry push to cheap foreign (ie. Mexican) labour.

The auto industry got its first real wakeup call in the 1970s with the energy crisis, and they have responded by introducing cheap-ass cars (ie. the pinto) and cars that are less energy-efficient (ie. SUVs) than their foreign competition. This is not a very effective strategy, if you ask me. The problem with the auto industry is a lack of invention and innovation, and this is not related to the elimination of leaded gasoline whatsoever.

This is a problem with American industry in general - they are unwilling to fundamentally change the way they do business because they feel some privilege in knowing that they are American industry (and that the government will bail them out if things get really tough). And the public is not pushing them to change, either. Many decry the loss of American jobs to cheap foreign labour, but they are unwilling to accept a lower minimum wage, and they will not push for a global minimum wage equivalent to their own because they're not willing to buy more expensive goods. It's quite the paradox.

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?

I just love it when people see the EPA as a massive anti-industry group. Compared to other countries (Germany, for example) the EPA is about as effective as a fly trying to take down an elephant. To the best of my knowledge, complying with EPA directives has never done any significant damage to a company's bottom line (unless there were some company called "Illegal Toxic Wast Dumping 'R Us" or something), and their actions have made America a cleaner, safer place to live. This has boosted the general health of the population, which is equivalent to a more productive work force and a reduced strain on the medical system.

Relentless implementation without sober examination is really bad politics, not bad science (just look at Bush's tax cut - has nothing to do with science at all). The removal of lead from gasoline didn't happen overnight, either. It took years and years of political wrangling and defeating bad industry studies to give everyone involved the impression that filling the environment with all the extra lead was *very* bad for people.

The removal of lead from gasoline did not kill the American auto industry - it merely placed a small constraint on their future manufacturing, namely that their engines should work with unleaded fuel. Telling an industry that their products have to be marginally better has never hurt anyone. Were the government to mandate that all vehicles had to get 50MPG, it would be unreasonable as the technology to implement that requirement is unstested and under developed. But clearly making car engines that burn lead-free gas was a fairly easy tweak, as we're all driving them today (and have been for many years).