Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions
rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.
Yale MBA's, and their dad's friends.
Duh!
The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.
Do you have a scientific basis for coming to such a conclusion?
"Provided by the management for your protection."
I am not through the whole thing, but so far it makes a lot of sense. Seems like good money spent.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
I'm reminded of the Bush Administrations first reaction to Global Warming...that it didn't exist. When confronted with mounting evidence to the contrary, the reaction from dubya was something to the affect of "What are you worrying about, it'll make winter weather less severe, last fewer months, and create a lot of new beach-front property. Everybody wins!" Now, that's a great scientific mind at work.
http://www.JournalOfTheRandom.com
Ooooh! Well look at Mr. 7-0-7-9-6-0! He read the article, he's so smart!
Well listen here Mr. Smartypants, we at Slashdot don't NEED to read the article to make wiseass comments! That's the way it's been since day 0, and that's the way it's gonna stay!
If you don't know what AltaVista is (was), get off my lawn.
My goodness. If you are going to criticize, try using a spell-checker. You mispelled the same words repeatedly, therefore they are not typos.
t e
Conference
Administration
Distorting
Institu
Scientist
Research
Astrophysics student? How did you graduate from high school? You must be educated by these same academics.
1. Distort scientific results
2. Poison environment and accelerate global warming
3. ????
4. Profit!
Believe it or not this does actually work and is profitable so I guess its really an old economy business plan.
@de_machina
- Clean Energy: Forge environmentally and economically sustainable solutions with renewable energy
- Clean Vehicles: Reduce the adverse impacts of cars, SUVs, trucks, and buses
- Climate Change: Promote solutions that slow global warming and reduce its impacts
- Food and Environment: Support the responsible use of biotechnology and antibiotics in agriculture
- Global Environment: Promote scientifically sound solutions to the major problems of global environmental change
- Global Security: Work toward a world free of nuclear arms and other weapons of mass destruction
- Habitats and Biodiversity: Help to protect forests, control invasive species, and conserve the diversity of life
- Nuclear Power Safety: Strengthen monitoring of nuclear plants and their regulators
Where is the objectivity here?? You could easily post this same info on the Sierra Club website and no one would give it a second look because of their reputation. Throw a name like 'Union of Concerned Scientists' at it though, and it must be valid. I can't find one thing in this list that anyone would disagree with.The methods for accomplishing those goals are another matter. This group has simply stated that anyone who disagrees with our methods is wrong and must be removed from office. I think that is scarier that George W. The last thing we need is a bunch of like-minded environmentalists in power. We will be wipping our butts on
Yawn
I rarely read replies, it's my opinion and if you thought about your opinion a little more, I'm OK with that.
> 40k a year is not hard to make even for the moderately ambitious. I'm lazy AND retarded and I still make 90k.
First off, you are full of shit on all points. 40K may be easy if you live in NYC, but that's not what I meant. You do not make 90k, although you may very well be lazy. Retarded goes without saying.
to change the rules every 4 years to fit his agenda. Gore was the only alternative and to pretend that he has nothing to do with anything is just silly. You can't say "your guy got bad grades" when the man you supported faired no better in school. If Gore's grades didn't matter back in 2000 when you voted for him why should Bush's matter to anyone now?
>giving them all green cards and free transportation to the states
Leave their ancestral home because some psycho is in power in their country? Hell no. Also the U.S. can't handle 24M more people coming here. We are having problems with immigration already.
>It also concerns me that there are many people who agree with you that we should go to war with a country before trying to solve these problems peacefully.
We did try peaceful negotiations for 8-10 years. If I remember correctly UN inspectors never got co-operation and they routinely fired on our planes enforcing a no-fly zone.
As for the 12K lives, yes it is tragic. Of course it is. However if we can start spreading Democracy in the middle east using Afghanistan and Iraq then the millions of people there will benefit. Bringing Capitolism and Democracy can potentially revolutionize the whole area, and bring prosperity.
Imagine you lived in a shack, in a desert without running water, and had the equivalent of a bagel to eat every day, with no education, etc. (not to mention the possiblilty of toture, rape, etc ) and I tell you, you have a choice. 1) continue living like you are, with poverty, starvation, etc all around you for you and your family with no hope in sight. 2) A war in which 1/40th of 1% of your people will die(assuming 1/2 of the number you gave were from Iraq, you can adjust a little if my assumption was off), which would result in freedom, democracy, education, improvement in standard of living, etc. for you, your family, and your entire country. Which would you choose? I don't know about you but for the sake of my children and family's future I would choose war.
-Comedian
** Scientific findings on issues such as climate change, mercury emissions, and reproductive health are being weakened or omitted in government reports and websites.
really? no proof given though, huh?
** Highly qualified scientists have been dismissed from advisory committees on childhood lead poisoning prevention and workplace safety and replaced by less qualified individuals with industry ties. At least two panels dealing with nuclear weapons have been disbanded altogether.
Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?
Specifically, the administration has distorted and suppressed scientific findings at federal agencies that contradict administration policies; undermined the independence of science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise; nominated underqualified individuals, or individuals with industry ties, to advisory panels; and disbanded some science advisory committees altogether.
That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.
Now, you wrote: Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized.
Sounds eerily like what UCS did to Bjorn Lomborg. Incidentally, Lomborg was "cleared" by the Danish Ministry of Science, Technology and Industry.
UCS has issued "studies" like this before, and none of them are ever backed up with facts. If you really read the website, you will see that they are an environmental organization, not a group representing the majority view of scientists either worldwide or in the U.S. Nothing against advocates for the environment, but color me skeptical on any organization that tries to misrepresent who they really are. UCS criticizes the Bush administration for ignoring "scientific findings on issues such as climate change...," yet they seem to do their own share of ignoring certain findings on the issue.
The newspapers simply recite a portion of the "about us" section of the website when describing UCS. Here's an alternative description of the organization. Granted, there is some bias in this assessment, but no more than UCS has for the Bush administration (see their objection to the Iraq war...not that their position is right or wrong, but it is no doubt an awful peculiar policy for a group of "objective scientists" to weigh in on).
I know a lot of you hate Bush, and that's fine, but you still have to consider the source of the information.