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

First post?

[peterpi]

I sure hope so

Politicians distorting the facts?

[Shut the fuck up!]

Novel theory.

Re:Politicians distorting the facts?

[Forge]

George Bush is worse than the rest.
Mostly because he is profoundly incompetent and everyone around him knows this and takes advantage of his stupidity.

Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Then why does so much of their funding come from opposition (liberal, democrat) linked sources?

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.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Here's a question for you. What did the five fingers say to the face? Answer: SLAP! I'm Rick James, Bitch!

Re:Independent?

[drooling-dog]

Then why does so much of their funding come from opposition (liberal, democrat) linked sources?

Because if the Republicans had funded it, the conclusions would have been rewritten and the Nobel laureates on the panel replaced by industry lobbyists and political hacks.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

How is this insightful? The supposedly apolitical "concerned" Scientists are a well-known liberal mouthpiece organization. Their ill-researched "global warming" screeching is an example of "..a severe deficiency in logical thinking" if there every was one.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

>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

I don't remember these 'independent orgainzations' be skeptcial of the contrived scientific findings produced during Clinton's term.

I guess they are only skeptical of scientific findings that don't agree with the political bent of their orgnization.

Re:Independent?

[hpavc]

I am not through the whole thing, but so far it makes a lot of sense. Seems like good money spent.

Re:Independent?

[deanj]

Here's another one Greenwatch.

Note the rating: radical left.

Also, check out:

activist cash for more info.

JunkScience.com said of these guys: "It's more like the Union of Concerned Lawyers."

This guys are FAR from independent.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Because if the Republicans had funded it, the conclusions would have been rewritten and the Nobel laureates on the panel replaced by industry lobbyists and political hacks.

I think we have to accept that no report is ever entirely independent and unbiased....erm...*cough*...Hutton Report......

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.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yep, all them people with book learnin' ain't to be trusted, Jeb.

After all, a good conservative ideology beats proper science any day. Right?

Re:Independent?

[composer777]

Part of the reason that college professor's and scientists seem so liberal is that in the context of America today, anything approaching rationality or lack of bias will appear "liberal". In other words, unless you're a reactionary conservative, you're liberal in the eyes of the Bush administratino. So, if you are highly educated and able to think in a scientific and balanced manner, then chances are that you will be labeled a "liberal" by the Bush administration, and perhaps even labeled that by the "liberal" media.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

This isn't proper science. This is politically fueled, spun pseudo-science. Follow the money.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, UCS sure was thinking rationally when they claimed the stealth bomber would cause a war with the Soviet Union. Oh, wait, that didn't happen!

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Junkscience.com? Yeah, no bias there, either.

Give me a break. What a bunch of right-wing loonies.

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: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:Independent?

[composer777]

Oh, and the other reason is that liberal and conservative are no longer attached to any meaningful criteria, at least not when they are used by the Bush administration. So, whether someone is a "liberal" or a "conservative" is pretty much a matter of what they call themselves, or in this case, what Bush calls them. This has the purpose of dissociating one's perception of politics from the real world. So, for example, when the Bush administration replies that the scientists seem biased and partisan, people have no objective way of determing whether or not the scientists are in fact biased in the liberal direction, since, after all, we have no objective criteria for being liberal or conservative. It's all relative on planet Bush.

If one wants to gain back their sanity, they need to remember that liberalism and conservatism are attached to well-defined criteria, and that people often don't call themselves what they really are. There is actually a defniition for left and right conservatism and liberalism, it's not relative. Most of the actions of "liberals" in the US are in fact centrist at best, not left-leaning. For example, Clinton dismantled (read, "reformed") the welfare system, slashed social security, and balanced the budget at the expense of many social programs. These are the actions of a fairly conservative centrist, no matter what the rhetoric at the time was. Bush has went into a huge deficit spending money on the rich, worked hard to destroy social programs, and brought about an unprecedented attack on the poor while handing billions to the rich. He is a big government Republican, something we haven't seen since the last time the a Republican took charge. These are the actions of an extreme conservative on a quest for power and domination. His rhetoric may be approaching centrism (i.e. wanting to be a uniter, not a divider), but his actions are decidely less so. To sum things up, if you want to evaluate whether someone is a liberal or a conservative, look at their actions, not their words, and evaluate things in the context of well-defined values, not relative ones (i.e. stay aware of the fact that "left" has a real meaning, not just "to the left of Bush", and same goes for the meaning of the word "right").

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or, do what virtually everyone else does:

If you hate Bush, applaud the study as perfect without questioning it, and depict Republicans as anti-science.

If you like Bush, denounce the study as politically motivated without considering it.

Seems to be the modus operandi here on Slashdot.

Re:Independent?

[pommiekiwifruit]

I note that on that political compass quizsite, all the democratic candidates are listed as right-wing.

It placed me near Nelson Mandela which surprised me - I thought I was pretty centrist economically - but its not exactly an insult.

Re:Independent?

[composer777]

The funny thing is, when I evaluate my own actions, not my beliefs, I'm fairly conservative. But, it's more of a survival mode type of conservativism. It's not a matter of not wanting to help people, it's a matter of there not being enough of a safety net for me to be able to afford to (at least not in any meaningful way). That's the way most Americans actually operate, it's driven by a survival instinct, with no choice of being able to help people. People like my brother on the other hand, who holds very conservative values, actually on the surface seems to behave in a more liberal manner. The inconsistency doesn't make much sense, until you realize that for someone who earns $200K and above every year, and has a net worth over a million, giving 1K a year to the poor amounts to little more than good PR and a tax-break. This is of course why most of the wealthy in the US give money to charity, it's just good Public Relations, it helps keep poor people from getting too pissed off and rebelling. Most of them would never actually take an approach that would permanently fix the problem, as that would also (likely) mean that they would have to give up some of their power and status too.

That's what most people are trained not to notice though, is that reality and rhetoric often do not correlate very well. The Soviet Union was never anything remotely resembling Communism. On the other hand, we don't resemble free market Capitalism either (and we're getting further away every day). Both systems have the same problem, they have no checks and balances for preventing power from being transferred to the hands of a few. While the rhetoric of Communism is clearly against concentration of power, the system itself doesn't really do anything to keep power out of the hands of dictators.

Capitalism has the same flaw. Just because capitalism doesn't necessarily result in a dictatorship doesn't mean that it won't. But, you're not supposed to notice that. Much like the Soviets were encouraged to keep going after the ideal of Communism no matter how bad things got, we are encouraged to go after the ideal of a "free" market, even though we've been at it for centuries, no matter how bad things get here in the US. You aren't supposed to notice that the statistics are showing that poverty is increasing and wealth is concentrating at the top. (This mean, of course, that on average, if you are born poor, you will die with even less than what you started with.) You aren't supposed to notice that, you're supposed to only notice the case of "rags to riches" like Bill Gates, where he went from "rags", which is apparently a free ride at Harvard, to "riches", which is apparently a dictatorship over a vast section of the economy. His thirst for power and money is enough to make Saddam Hussein blush, but that's the American way. You also aren't supposed to notice that the only reason wealth was as evenly distributed as it was in the US is because land was given away to the poor, which has nothing to do with capitalism, and actually resembles socialism in a way. But again, I digress.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

Couple of points:

1.) Spending is not decided on by the President in the US system, it's decided by congress, with the president merely having a veto. Thus, saying Reagan was 'liberal' on spending, while Clinton was 'conservative' is meaningless - they both served mostly under a hostile congress, and thus had to adapt. Clinton started out liberal (under a Democratic congress), and became more conservative as congress changed hands.

2.) The UCS is most definately a liberal organisation. Just take a look at their front page for chrissakes!

3.) As for the "destruction of social programs" and the "unprecedented attack on the poor", what excactly did you have in mind? The Drug benefit? "No Child Left Behind"? Name 'em or step down from the soapbox.

Re:Independent?

[Impalanar]

Anyone but Bush in 2004. This is the most asinine thing I believe I have ever heard and I hope you do not vote. Just the thought that there are people out there like you scares me more than any two people on the far left or far right. BTW, the people in GTMO are not "dissidents." And the answer to your question would be Communist governments.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

"One of their biggest backers is the V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, which regularly donates to many other groups such as Greenpeace, labeled by some as ecoterrorists."

While the biggest backer on the other side is the Bush family, which regularly donates to many other groups such as Iraq and Iran, labeled by some as real terrorists.

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's the modus operandi of everyone who watches TV and listens to CNN.

The world isn't just black and white, but why are there only two political parties?

Personally, I think "left" and "right" wing parties are in bed with each other.

Re:Independent?

[yosemite]

Seeing as this whole thread is already a huge flame fest, I have to say that "Anyone but Bush in 2004" is a legitimate position to take, especially in this round of presidential politics. This report only provides more reasons to say it; it exemplifies the kind of BS that bush is full of. I mean for christ sakes, who listens to the fucking lead lobby??

Anyone but Bush in 2004

Re:Independent?

[composer777]

1) This is beside the point. Vetos have a very obvious effect on how bills are shaped by Congress. While in theory, congress has complete control, quite a bit of policy also comes out of the White House. In theory, Bush only presides over decisions made by Congress. In reality, Bush has produced quite a bit of policy, including promoting the war on Iraq, Afghanistan, etc. If you've been paying attention, in the real world, the president is creating policy, and Congress is rubber stamping it. Labeling Clinton and Reagan

2) Really? Is trashing the environment good long term business strategy? In the short run, you are right, environmentalism is more liberal than complete laissez faire. In the long term, it's centrist at the most, if not conservative. Think about it, keeping the planet from being trashed is helpful to both business/conservative/wealthy people as it is the poor, at least in the long term. Environmental protections are centrist (arguably conservative) idea when viewed rationally and for the long term.

It's kind of like debating strategy over the war on Iraq. Only "extreme" liberals questioned the war before it happened. Most "liberals" merely questioned the strategy, not the morality of it. This should tell you how conservative things really are. A truly liberal viewpoint would have said we shouldn't go to war at all, but, we really don't have much of that in the democratic party.

In the case of environmental regulation, a truly liberal viewpoint would conclude that since corporations can't keep themselves from trashing the environment, that they should be destroyed, and that we need to come up with other institutional structures for organizing society. A moderately right of center viewpoint says, "Ok, corporations are trashing the environment, but that's not an argument against them, because everyone knows that corporations are wonderful, top down, authoritarian regimes that we want and need. So, lets discuss whether or not we should actually dare to tell them whether or not they can polute, not whether or not their behavior is evidence that they should be abolished." The people that you call "liberals" aren't really proposing much, just that we admit that maybe dumping a bunch of shit into the atmosphere might be bad for the environment. The fact that this kind of straightforward thinking is "liberal" in your eyes gives us insight into how you view the world.

3) These are known as unfunded mandates. This is where you need to separate rhetoric from reality. Bush talks like a Centrist, but walks like an ultra-conservative. Many of his more "liberal" ideas are pork barrel spending at it's worst, and are simply packaged as an idea that the Democrats might have. So, of the money that is set aside for the "prescription drug benefit", half of that 400 billion is money that's just given to drug companies. Nothing is expected in return, no strings attached. It's just free money that they are given. The other half is used to actually purchase drugs from those companies. But there's more, the drug companies are allowed to ask for as much money as they want for their products. In other words, of the other half, that is actually going to be used for prescription drugs, Bush said that Medicare is not allowed to bargain for lower prices on those drugs, but has to pay the price that drug companies set. Insurance companies can bargain but apparently medicare can't under Bush's new program. So basically, it's a big hand off of $$$$$$$ :), yeah, that's great. A big gravy train for drug companies, that's what we need, more gravy for the rich, they aren't fat enough yet. Bush makes the excuse that the drug companies need the money for research, but if you've been paying attention, I already talked about how the government pays for most drug research through University NIH grants. So, people like my girlfriend, who is an MD/Phd, get paid less than 30K a year to do research on diseases, and they write papers, and then when the research actually p

Re:Independent?

[yosemite]

activist cash?

"a part of the ConsumerFreedom.com network,
is committed to providing detailed and up-to-date
information on where anti-consumer organizations
and activists get their money."

give me a break! no bias there huh?

Re:Independent?

[Anonymous Coward]

...a well-known liberal mouthpiece organization.

Well done, you are a double-plus good duckquacker!

Re:Independent?

[Lendrick]

"Anyone but Bush in 2004" is of course a bit of an exaggeration. I'm guessing fully 30% of the population of the United States would make a worse president than George W. As it stands, I'd vote for anyone who showed a lick of financial competence and wasn't planning on siphoning off more of my rights (Patriot Act 2, anyone?) and kowtowing to the Christian right. Oh, and someone who doesn't want the power to arbitrarily designate me as a terrorist and send me off to some internment camp. The governemnt can do that right now, you realize.

And the answer to my question is totalitarian governments in general, not just communist ones.

Mod me offtopic. I've got a strong opinion and karma to burn. :)

Oh, boy!

[qw(name)]

Can you tell it's an election year?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Gil-galad55]

Actually, they've been working on the report for over a year and released it as soon as they were finished. They didn't expect it to take this long. It's in the article.

Re:Oh, boy!

[cluckshot]

Seerprize Seerprize Seerprize (Like Gomer Pile USMC [Old US TV Show]) We couldn't have some Bush people telling lies now could we? Sheezam! The world must be coming to an end...? Look up in the sky its a bird its a plane... no its stuporman.

We now know that creative writing is the top college degree in the White House and possibly some other places as well.

I snap my fingers you will immediately panic and be sure that "they" are going to poison you and kill your children ...

Re:Oh, boy!

[ackthpt]

Can you tell it's an election year?

Considering the president was a 'C' student, why should he care about science?

I have no problem believing the president means well, but I also believe he's daft. The concerns of the UCS fly may appear to contradict my beliefs, but I think the president thinks there's something good about allowing more lead in water, more snowmobiles in Yellowstone park, etc. I just can't see what it is. Maybe, like those big tax cuts for the rich, this is supposed to create jobs.

Now Cheney, he's a stinker.

Re:Oh, boy!

[hpavc]

I am sure they didnt think they would have such a wealth of a source to write about.

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

"Maybe, like those big tax cuts for the rich, this is supposed to create jobs."

Man, this is the mantra these days...isn't it? I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest...$200K/yr? $500K/yr? The fact that none of the opposing candidates can tell me a figure....makes me worried they think someone who makes $35K-$85K a year is wealthy. That's freakin' middle class...

Other thing that bothers me with this train of thought. In the tax cut....EVERY tax payer got a tax cut. 10% off of $35K is much less that 10% of $100K...but, everyone got a 10% cut. What's wrong with that? I personally don't think that a person making a lot of money should have to pay 50% - 70% in taxes? There is nothing wrong with working hard, and with some luck, making a success out of yourself. You shouldn't be penalized for doing well.

The part I can't understand...is why on the tax cut...people in congress/senate started going on about 'how the very poor, bottom of the scale people' didn't benefit from the tax cuts. Hmmm...think it had to do with the fact that they don't pay taxes?? Kinda hard to give a tax cut where you try to take 10% off $0.

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!

[Tibor the Hun]

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!

Re:Oh, boy!

[Epyn]

Sorry to play a sad depressing tune here, but the flat tax idea is all well and good, unless you're living off of 20k a year. The reason we have an 'unfair' scale is because whichever combination of laws etc that govern wages allows even hard-working people to make a poverty level 'living'. Explain to me, without the 'contributing to the gov will give them pride' crap, why someone making 20k/yr doing fulltime hard work should have to pay 15%. If you and your spouse make that much, and you have a couple kids, how the h*ll bad would you feel that some 6 figure 'worker' has to pay a higher percentage?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Jerry]

I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest..

Gore did that during his attempt to steal the presidency in Florida (too bad those democrats got caught running around the counties with a Votamatic). Remember? He claimed that folks who make $250K/yr were 'millionaires' because in four years....

Re:Oh, boy!

[Phillup]

My experience has been that people that make a LOT of money... don't deserve it.

They haven't done a darn thing that someone making $200 Grand couldn't have done.

Certainly nothing to earn $10 Million...

Limit the amount of money that a person can earn in a year and there would have been no reason for Enron... or Iraq for that matter, to happen.

I'll define "excess" as more than a million a year... let the debate begin!

Re:Oh, boy!

[jeabus]

They should pay because they benefit from government services.

Borg Gates and I both receive the same benefits from government, he just has to pay a helluva lot more. We're protected by the same tanks, ships, and planes. Our food is inspected by the same people. Our drugs are approved by the same tests. Our SS "funds" are administered by the same bureaucrats. Why does Gates (and pretty much 50% of taxpayers) have to pay more than I do for the same services? He has to pay more just because he makes more.

Even with a flat tax it isn't fair, because 10% of "billions and billions" is way more than 10% of my pittance.

You should feel bad if someone pays more taxes than you because they're getting ripped off more than you. But instead of worrying about how much your neighbor is or isn't paying, you should start wondering why the government needs to steal all this money in the first place.

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

Although I'm more in favor of a flat tax...or nat'l sales tax...I don't have a problem with a graduated tax scale...as long as it is reasonable. No matter how much money you make, you should not be forced to give 50% or more of your income..that is just plain theft.

As for kids...hey, you chose to have them. If you can't afford them, you shouldn't have them. If you do...then deal with the fact you have to make sacrifices. Why should you pay less because you chose to have one or more kids? Its not fair that a single person or childless couple should have to pay 'more' in taxes, and you pay less. Look at it this way. Say we both pay $10 each paycheck that goes to public education. You want a tax break for a child. So, now, I still pay the $10...and you pay nothing. Why is this the case that I'm paying for a resource that you are not paying for...but, ARE using, and I am not.

A fair taxation scheme is needed...but, not a income redistribution scheme...

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah But Do you think Gates yorked a lot harder than you to get is money. Why would he deserve THAT much money?

Re:Oh, boy!

[johnlcallaway]

Thank you!!! I get so damn sick and tired of hearing the Democrap candidates espouse 'kill the tax cuts!!'. Well, I don't make 6 figures (high 5 figures though), but that tax cut last year gave me $100 more a month to spend on computer games.

Let's put this in perspective, I paid $17,000 last year in federal income tax alone. All by myself. Even a 1% tax cut is $170 in my pocket, or about 15 bucks a month.

So, who is the best a distorting facts, Republicans or Democrats? Environmentalists or Business? Health officials or cigarette manufacturers? Everyone does it to suit their goals. Scientists themselves have done it for years. Their are numerous examples of the scientific community themselves fighting over theories in their attempt to prove that their's is the best.

Would anyone want a pure scientist setting public policy? There has to be a balance between what is theoritical and reality. If we only did what was best for the environment, we wouldn't have cars or toilet paper.

And since the paper is /.ed, I guess I'll have to wait until later to read more than just Wired's summary. Maybe they need fewer scientists in their IT department and some with real world experience.....

Re:Oh, boy!

[BlewScreen]

I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest...$200K/yr? $500K/yr?

HA! If only it were that HIGH... Fact is, many slashdot readers probably fit the definition...

From The Heritage Foundation:

Like fairness, "rich" is a subjective term, but the most common definition of "rich" in Washington is someone in the top 20 percent (or quintile) of income. Many Americans in this quintile hardly would qualify as rich, though, since the cutoff in 1999 for the top 20 percent of tax returns is $79,375 of household income.

Keep in mind that that is HOUSEHOLD income...

-bs

Re:Oh, boy!

[Dr. Manhattan]

"[F]or a long time I bought into a common schema for the Bush administration: dim-bulb president surrounded and propped up by bright, ruthless neocons... I'm chagrined to admit now that I have, at least in part, bought into a lie... The neocons surrounding Bush are not all that bright." - Jon Carroll

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

By definition, if you make a lot of money you did deserve it. Of course, there's always exceptions, but by and large you had to create far more wealth than the amount you made.
Take away the incentive to create wealth, and we will all be poor.

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!

[Zeinfeld]

Let's put this in perspective, I paid $17,000 last year in federal income tax alone. All by myself. Even a 1% tax cut is $170 in my pocket, or about 15 bucks a month.

Cry me a river, Over the past four years I paid over half a million dollars in taxes. But I would rather see the tax cuts repealled and the economy doing better than continue with a stagnant economy and $50,000 off my taxes.

During the Clinton boom the economy grew 4% year on year, that means the economy grew by almost a fifth in each term. That means far more to me than any amount I might pay in taxes. During the Bush recession the economy was stagnant, there was one quarter where it grew by 2% (reported in the press as 8% anualized) and a second when it grew by 1% (reported in the press as 5% anualized). But we still havent had one year that comes close to matching the Clinton performance.

Sure Bush had some bad luck, but all President's do. Bush has made no good luck. That is the problem. He is also responsible for the bulk of the deficit, he has not vetoed a single one of the pork filled spending bills from the Republican Congress. He pushed through irresponsible tax cuts which in many cases will only start to take effect after the recession is over. That means that long term interest rates, the rates businesses borrow money at and the rates that determine economic growth are much too high. The markets know there is a big increase in borrowing comming.

The falloff of tax revenues and the $250 billion cost of the war in Iraq are part of the reason for the deficit, but they are not the biggest reason and they are not part of the forward planning estimates that are predicting $400 billion dollar deficits for the next ten years.

So no, a four year tax cut does not impress me in the slightest. It is clearly not going to last. Regardless of who is President next year taxes are going to return to their pre-Bush level and then some extra will be added on top. Read my lips, Tax rises are inevitable.

No politician deserves credit for tax cuts unless they can cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay for them.

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!

[Anonymous Coward]

Sounds like an act of terrorism to me.

(of course I'm joking... but you the picture:)

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!

[Headius]

People can choose to have kids. They can not, however, choose to have their job taken away or their pay cut. Most people do not choose poverty; they have it thrust upon them by events that may be out of their control.

It can also be pretty easily shown that those with more income do use a proportionately higher percentage of public resources. People with cars take a toll on the roads, while people without cars do not; people with two cars doubly so. Those with property concerns take a greater toll on government systems such as courts and public works. In addition, living in a country where individuals are given such opportunity to amass wealth comes at a cost: you pay taxes to the government because you do not have a god-given right to live in the United States. You make money off an economic system that hinges on the succesful administration of governmental processes to support it.

A graded taxation system guarantees that the people taking the most out of the system; i.e. those who have resources enough to put extra strain on governmental processes, pay proportionately more for the right to do so.

Re:Oh, boy!

[KarmaMB84]

The 5% that control over 80% of the nation's wealth is my definition of rich. Wealthy would be the top 20%.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I have no problem believing the president means well, but I also believe he's daft. The concerns of the UCS fly may appear to contradict my beliefs, but I think the president thinks there's something good about allowing more lead in water, more snowmobiles in Yellowstone park, etc. I just can't see what it is. Maybe, like those big tax cuts for the rich, this is supposed to create jobs.

Geez, it's like he thinks rich people are the ones who use money to hire and fire around here! Doesn't he know that rich people create more jobs when you tax them more? Ha Ha! What a fool!

And what about that lead? Doesn't Bush know that the nation is facing severe lead poisoning? It's been scientifically proven, and yet this dummy MARCHES ON!

And what about riding snowmobiles? Doesn't Bush realize this is TOO MUCH liberty for Americans to use responsibly? It's almost like he doesn't realize REGULATION is what has made America great! This stupid moron is destroying the American dream of creating and living by MORE and MORE of our sweet, sweet regulations!

Now remember kids: "Bush is a Dummy!(tm)"

Re:Oh, boy!

[johnlcallaway]

Maybe your parents need to move. My fiance's property taxes went down last year by about $250.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Tibor the Hun]

for what it's worth, my earlier comment was supposed to have and tags, but my dumb ass didn't preview the comment and it turned out i didn't have proper formatting selected.
i hope i didn't offend you, and yes i do sometimes read the articles.

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

By your logic....then, people with kids use a higher percentage of public resources (schools, water, etc)....and should pay more instead of less?

Interesting...

On my other posts...I said while I'd like to see some kind of flat tax or nat'l sales tax...at this point, I have no problem with a graded tax system..but, one within reason...no one should have to pay 50% and more of their income.

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

--quoted from above--

"Maybe, like those big tax cuts for the rich, this is supposed to create jobs."

Man, this is the mantra these days...isn't it? I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest...$200K/yr? $500K/yr? The fact that none of the opposing candidates can tell me a figure....makes me worried they think someone who makes $35K-$85K a year is wealthy. That's freakin' middle class...

Other thing that bothers me with this train of thought. In the tax cut....EVERY tax payer got a tax cut. 10% off of $35K is much less that 10% of $100K...but, everyone got a 10% cut. What's wrong with that? I personally don't think that a person making a lot of money should have to pay 50% - 70% in taxes? There is nothing wrong with working hard, and with some luck, making a success out of yourself. You shouldn't be penalized for doing well.

The part I can't understand...is why on the tax cut...people in congress/senate started going on about 'how the very poor, bottom of the scale people' didn't benefit from the tax cuts. Hmmm...think it had to do with the fact that they don't pay taxes?? Kinda hard to give a tax cut where you try to take 10% off $0.

Why was this quoted post modded so low? It was a direct answer to its parent that is +5...c'mon...be fair...

Re:Oh, boy!

[hesiod]

> you do not have a god-given right to live in the United States

This pisses me off. A lot. I have the right to live where I damn well choose. Who gave it to me? Well, God (if you believe, I don't) chose for me to be born in the U.S. so.. yeah, it really IS a god-given right. I was born here whether the people who appointed themselves my master like it or not. I guess I'm just a lonely anarchist.

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!

[hesiod]

> My parents had to pay 500 more to the school in our area for property tax. The health care costs rose up a bitch

Well, Education is a "local" concern, so blame your local government. Even if that isn't 100% true, the property tax certainly is. Health care costs... well, that depends on what you mean. Health care in general is more expensive because greedy lawyers & their lawsuits, and greedy doctors & their new pair of His & Hers Humvees every year. Doctors, Lawyers, and government workers need a real frikkin reality check on what they think they are worth.

Re:Oh, boy!

[hesiod]

> the economy grew 4% year on year

Ignoring that most of that was not really there (overvalued everything in the 90s), growth in a government is not really desireable. The government is here to support its citizens, not to turn a profit. If they make money AT ALL, there is something wrong -- that money should immediately be put back into "the system" so that it can be pushed around some more. A good economy isn't about an absolute dollar figure, it is more like the rate at which money changes hands.

Disclaimer: I don't care any more, so I am just explaining things as I see them, not as someone tells me. Therefore, I could be a bit wrong in places -- I am not an economist and chances are, you aren't either. But then again, I'm no statistician either...

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!

[hesiod]

> the top 20 percent of tax returns is $79,375 of household income.

Shit, to me, that is rich. I'd give both of my nuts (hell, I'm not using them anyway) to make that much.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

You'd have a lot more credibility if you sent the $50k back to Washington. But no, it's easier to complain.

Re:Oh, boy!

[vsync64]

People with cars take a toll on the roads, while people without cars do not; people with two cars doubly so.

Someone's figured out how to drive 2 cars at once?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Then get off your ass and stop whining.
Stop posting on Slashdot and read a fucking book.

40k a year is not hard to make even for the moderately ambitious. I'm lazy AND retarded and I still make 90k.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Phillup]

It wasn't "overvalued" until it became obvious that Bush was the Republican candidate for president.

Almost to the day.

Go look at a graph of the stock market... find the point in time where John McCain dropped out and Bush became the official Republican candidate.

And, watch the market "build in" the possibility of Bush becoming president.

The "market" understood what the return of the dinosaurs meant to our economy... and it was reflected in the downturn.

Re:Oh, boy!

[hesiod]

> 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.

Re:Oh, boy!

[spacecowboy420]

Maybe it is just the fact that I am a huge simpsons fan, but when I read that, I totally heard it in Homer's voice.

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!

[Martin Blank]

Judging by Table 5 here, it would appear that at least in 2000, the top 5% (the floor for which was $128,336 in adjusted gross income) collected about 35% of the income but paid 56% of the income taxes, which amounts to 56% of the total income tax take. I'm not sure how you define "middle class," but I think it's traditionally well below the $128,000 mark.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Mybrid]

Actually, the income tax as first created did tax 100% of an income over one million dollars. This was changed in 1940.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Mybrid]

Nope. That's not true at all, just as "trickle down" ecnomics doesn't work either. In all the countries where 5% of the population owns 90% the populace lives in abject poverty and there isn't a middle class. Look at Latin America. On paper they have Democracy and free markets, captilasim. In reality they have tyranny. Capitalism hinges on a ver key point, fairness.

Re:Oh, boy!

[diablobynight]

Your a dolt. Children are a requirement for the future of a country. Even if you don't have children, by being a citizen you have a responsibility to the good of the country. And the better educated a populace is, the more likely the country will continue to do economically well.


You don't get a tax break for children you get a tax break for dependants, this means that a significant amount of your money is being spent on another person. IF you don't like how the tax is, the other option would be to allow you to right off money spent on supporting this other person. Dependants are only qualified as such if you are directly responsible for the well being. Parent or guardian, wife or husband. This is a good idea, and trust me, their tax break does not come close to the actualy cost of a dependant.

not to beat a dead horse, but you had parents jack ass and you benefited from this in the respect that your parents had more money to spend on you, so you could come here educated and bitch about you paying taxes.

and that public schools shit you just said, that was dumb, parents also pay the ten dollars, because in most school districts public schools are paid for with a property tax, and their are no dependant breaks on property tax.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Gil-galad55]

Np ;) My tone wasn't meant to be smart, either. Geez, all of this conciliation--I think I need to go check and see if Kirk has a beard or not.

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!

[durdur]

> A fair taxation scheme is needed...but, not a
> income redistribution scheme.

Income distribution is becoming more skewed over time. Pay for CEOs and other top execs has gotten increasingly disconnected from any measure of how well they or the companies they head perform, and also has risen to ludicrous heights compared to what the average worker is making. There is truly no limit to human greed, and most of the people who are getting (and increasingly, keeping) vast amounts of wealth are not going to step off the gravy train voluntarily.

Some people may still think this is just fine, it is the capitalist system at work. Others may think there's a problem, but there's a non-governmental solution. But personally I think some degree of income redistribution by government is just fine (and I'm in an income bracket where I'd almost certainly be on the giving end rather than the receiving end of this).

Re:Oh, boy!

[operagost]

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).

Before some modbot marks that at "Insightful" - whoops, too late - let's think about that statement. Is that REALLY true? I mean, unless you literally light your cigars with Bennies, you should be able to recognize the value of a dollar no matter how many you have. The people who know how to manage their money do. We have people who won millions in a lottery and are broke in a few years because they didn't know how to manage it and didn't care about a few dollars lost here and there. Meanwhile, Larry Ellison may have a lot of neat toys, but I'll bet he has accountants always poring over the books to make sure he doesn't get ripped off on jet fuel.

I don't think it's fair for you to decide how much money I'll miss when you take it from me. Right now I'm actually in a tough financial situation, but I still wouldn't like someone to grab wads of cash involuntarily from some guy who worked hard for it and give it to me to "even things out." Is that attitude ever going to teach people the value of money management?

Re:Oh, boy!

[comedian23]

Just as an example IBM, which had been trading at between $25-45 since 1965 jumped from about $20 in 1995 to about $120 in 2000. You don't think that was overvalued? What about Protor and Gamble, $20 to $110. Don't those seem excessive to you? I don't care how good business is, a 40% increase in stock value annually for five consecutive years, especially large companies just doesn't happen. That is like buying a house at $120K and five years later it's worth $650K.

The economy was held up by a technological revoltion, as investors got greedy and paid way too much for stocks in the hopes of making it big. It was bound to collapse sooner or later. Blaming Bush for the economy being in the crapper is a very convienent and simplistic view of it.

-Comedian

Re:Oh, boy!

[operagost]

People can choose to have kids. They can not, however, choose to have their job taken away or their pay cut.

No, actually they can choose to be lazy, incompetent, or corrupt and cause those things to happen to them.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, just another moron in the stack who actually believes that the economy turning has something to do with the current president instead of the laws passed 5-10 years beforehand.

Don't worry, one day you'll get it.

Re:Oh, boy!

[robateastridge]

I think you missed the big picture. My kids are going to enter the workforce and pay taxes/Social Security to the government, which will support you and I when we retire. You're paying the $10 now, and I'm paying the $10 in a deferred manner to get the same future benefit that only I am ensuring by having kids. I do pity that you might miss the fun of kids by thinking of them as a burden or alternative.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Tibor the Hun]

Oh, your tone was fine, I was just trying to be funny. Crazy thing is, someone modded me as informative after I was modded flaimbait..

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

you should not be forced to give 50% or more of your income..that is just plain theft.

In a perfect world, you'd be right. But I'll tell you a real example of theft: a CEO paying himself $1 million a year or more.

Before you tell me that he's worth what he pays himself, let me remind you that economic studies have shown that company performance is not significantly correlated with CEO salary.

And before you tell me that CEOs of public corporations don't set their own salaries (the board of directors sets them), yes that's supposed to be true, but most boards in the US are made up of executives of other companies ... whose boards are made up of people who are executives of the companies whose boards they are on . Sound circular? That's because it is. At top executive and board level, these people are just deciding their own salaries. They screw the workers and they screw the stockholders. Theft.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Tibor the Hun]

Crazy thing is, someone modded me as informative, after I was already modde flaimbait...

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush and his CEO cronies who got him in office are doing everything they can to line their pockets.

It doesn't matter if we spill oil all over the Alaskan tundra. If that happens, we can raise oil price further and make even more money.

Who cares if the ozone is gone and there is global warming? The heads of industry don't want to think about it, so they pay for an opposing study done by bogus scientists and 'poof' the problem doesn't exist anymore.

What about the American Worker? He doesn't need to work. People from other countries can come here and work instead, better yet, let them stay in their own countries and we can send them the work.

These types of actions will continue until we get a president that really cares about the American People, not just big business CEOs.

--or--

It will continue until the earth is a burnt out cinder with no air, no water, no work and the corporate bigwigs have everything (the meek shall inherit empty space).

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

Well, truth is...by the time I get to retirement...there won't be any SS to pay me, I really do believe this..so, moot point.

Hey, glad you have kids and enjoy them. I'm getting a little old to be having newborns now, but, if I meet someone to settle down with and have them..ok, but, only when I make enough to support them and still maintain my lifestyle. I've come close to having kids 3 times....but, so far...so good!! Would have been way to young and irresponsible back then. Dodged marriage twice...and upon reflection...thank God there too!

So, I'm out to make $$'s, party and enjoy life without having to be chained down to one woman, or kids. Sure there are trade offs, but, I'm enjoying things now. If you choose the other life, more power to you, but, you're kids don't really benefit me at all...they cost me. But, I'm supportive enough to know our society of today will totally crumble if we have all the people's offspring running around uneducated, etc. But, the long term things I'm not too concerned about. I'll be long gone before most of the hard problems come about....

Like Jim Morrison said: "I'm going to get my kicks before the whole shithouse goes up in flames.."

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure how your statement
"NO PRESIDENT has direct influence on the economy, and any influence that he does have is minor."
is compatible with your previous statement that this is a "Clinton Recession".

You also seem to give credit to Gingrich for the economic growth, but it is somehow the fault of Clinton that this growth was too fast causing the recession to follow.

I agree with you that no president has had a strong direct influence on the economy, but from this I believe it follows that neither Clinton nor Bush is responsible for the current recession.

Re:Oh, boy!

[iceperson]

Labelling it Clinton's Recession is misleading I agree but usually when referring to a recession by President then you have to attribute it to the President who was in office at the beginning of the downturn and not the person who inheritted it.

Re:Oh, boy!

[operagost]

You obviously aren't talking about the U.S. The first federal income tax was 1% on income over $20,000. That's all!

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Those rich people are such assholes. When they buy government debt they expect to be paid interest!!! The nerve!!!

Congratulations, dude. You are officially "COMPLETELY DETACHED FROM REALITY".

Much of that federal debt is held by foreigners (governments and individuals) and probably your fucking pension fund too.

Here's the breakdown on the Treasury bond "gravy train" for you.
Step 1: Bleeding-heart libs create vast entitlement programs.
Step 2: They collect more tax than they need right now, but spend the surplus like drunken sailors.
Step 3: Issue T-bonds to cover their asses.
Step 4: "Rich people" buy aforementioned T-bonds, and (gasp!) expect to be paid interest on them.

Now, I don't have any problem with sending out a few welfare checks. I look at welfare as protection money to keep the barbarians from looting the hard-earned fruits of my labor. I do, however, have a big problem with the salaries and generous benefits for all those guvmint employees. Unfortunately, all those assholes vote straight-ticket Democrat, which is why nobody can ever seem to "slash" these "vital social programs".

I'm posting anon because I'm "rich". I made 125k last year to support my stay-at-home wife and two kids. So sock-it-to-me, Mr. Tax And Spend.

Have a nice day!

Re:Oh, boy!

[Felix Rodriguez]

I agree about the president influencing the economy bit, but...

Regarding the deficit:
1) The president has almost full control over the budget. He can veto anything he doesn't like. BUSH CAN VETO SPENDING BILLS AND BRING BACK THE DEFICIT. but he doesn't. Also US deficits were of trivial quantity until the Reagan administration. There were no large deficits before that even with a democrat congress.

2) Okay. Now that would be nice. I wish the Republicans in power NOW (not 4 years ago) would learn how to cut spending. They haven't - even if you discount the ridiculous rise in military spending.

3) Again. I wish Bush would sign a bill like that.

4) And every economist in the world said that's not a realistic possibility. How many lies does Bush have to say before you stop believing him?

5) If the government gave me ONE MILLION DOLLARS that would be MERE CRUMBS compared to what is spent on other things. And although I would love that, its still a stupid govenment policy.

Tax raises are not inevitable. But for god's sakes you have to reduce spending to avoid them! And I laugh at your Democrat comment... Bush Sr raised taxes.

And just for note - I am not a Democrat. If the Republicans would revert to being a party of small government I would go back to them. Otherwise, I vote against them.

Re:Oh, boy!

[sfjoe]

5) The cost of Iraq is MERE CRUMBS compared to what is spent on other things.

Every single point you make is either a distortion, an outright lie or just laughably dumb. I's like to show the actual facts that contradict your incredibly dim-bulb, paleoconservative rant, but I just don't have the time so I'll just pic this one.
The "MERE CRUMBS" you speak about don't exist. We don't even know what those "crumbs" are yet. The DoD has withheld budget data from Congress that would indicate what they're spending or planning to spend in Iraq. You don't know that they're "mere crumbs" because nobody knows. President Flightsuit ain't saying and the Republican Congress ain't asking.

Re:Oh, boy!

[operagost]

The left wing, empty headed Slashbots here once again prove their agendas by modding the grandparent post 'offtopic' while modding its child 'interesting'. Yes, it's interesting how you all think you're 31337 radicals but all toe the authoritarian line.

Re:Oh, boy!

[wtansill]

"Cry me a river, Over the past four years I paid over half a million dollars in taxes. But I would rather see the tax cuts repealled and the economy doing better than continue with a stagnant economy and $50,000 off my taxes."

Do you need, like, ummm.... an assistant??

Re:Oh, boy!

[Phillup]

Well, I certainly wasn't talking about individual stocks... there will always be some that are over-valued and some that are under-valued.

Now, my question is... what economic theory allows for a free market to be "overvalued"? Isn't a free market, with rational actors, by definition "balanced"?

But, you just pointed out that the market was "held up by a technological revolution". And the stock examples you picked out bear out what I was saying... the forward looking value of the stocks was high, in anticipation of phenomenal growth.

That balloon was burst when it became apparent that money was going to be channeled back to the dinosaur business... and... it has to come from somewhere.

Just as tax cuts have to come from war programs... or social programs.

TANSTAAFL

And... nowhere did I "blame" Bush... I simply pointed out what the data seems to indicate. If I was going to "blame" anyone, it would be John McCain. The market seemed fine with the idea of him being president. But... he wasn't "controllable" so, the party dumped him in favor of someone that was.

---

And... this all assumes that the only qualification that matters is the market. Which, IMHO should be the absolute last factor to consider.

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!

[Kick the Donkey]

So, the current president cannot take the blame for the current economic situation. That's the line I here from Republi-can'ts call the time. Blame Clinton! Its his fault that we are in a recession! The parent post said 5-10 years. Okay. Explain this to me: How can Bush take credit for the economy "getting stronger" (his words)? Shouldn't you have to give Clinton credit for that?

Re:Oh, boy!

[iceperson]

Actually, I give congress credit.

Re:Oh, boy!

[BorgCopyeditor]

No, actually they can choose to be lazy, incompetent, or corrupt and cause those things to happen to them.

So, the car factories in Michigan were closed because workers were lazy, incompetent, or corrupt? Right.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Kick the Donkey]

I guess we can't just agree that all politicians are lieing, opportunistic-sacks of slack-jawed monkeys? Sorry if I offeneded any monkeys with that comment. I ment no disrespect. Obviously, you are of much higher form of life than a politican.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Sigl]

A graded taxation system guarantees that the people taking the most out of the system; i.e. those who have resources enough to put extra strain on governmental processes, pay proportionately more for the right to do so.

Huh? I would like you to try using math to calculate those proportions because I don't see how it could support your statement.

Since you mentioned roads I'll use it. Two people I will call Tax20 and Tax30 for their respective tax percentage. In one instance I will say they drive cars that have an equal cost to operate and have an equal toll an the road. If they both do $100 of driving that gets them the same distance doing the same wear on the roads Tax 30's income tax has already paid $30 on that $100 where Tax20 has only paid $20.

Now let's argue that Tax30 would tend to buy a huge beast of a vehicle with poor mileage that weighs twice as much. I'll even say that this vehicle does 3 times the damage to the roads and environment (even though I believe 98% of the environmental damage comes from cars older than 10yrs which Tax30 would tend not to own) and I will say the vehicle operating cost is 3 times the Tax20 car. I won't even count the extra taxes on oversize/luxury/gas/insurance (just the tax portions) that Tax30 will spend, and Tax 30 will have paid $90 for the same distance as Tax20 who only spent $20.

Say then that Tax20 used all his money to buy this same beast... he will have paid $60 for the same distance. Tax20 probably couldn't afford it so Tax30 will have paid $30 more just for the privilege of more easily being able to buy a bigger or better vehicle and have to accept that he is taxed 4.5x what Tax20 pays (with his normal car) to go the same distance because of it.

Was I not conservative enough with my numbers? comments welcome. Also, this is really only meant as an analysis of income tax so it should be able to be applied to anything you spend incometaxed money on.

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?

Re:Oh, boy!

[OwnedByTwoCats]

Deceptive in several ways. First off, 5% of the population having "only" 35% of the AGI means that on average, we're talking about having _7_ times the average income. Such is the nature of a progressive tax system.

Secondly, the income tax, while it dominates the taxes payed by upper earners, isn't where low and moderate income folks are taxed. I'm not poor, but I pay more in SS taxes than I do in income tax.

Re:Oh, boy!

[comedian23]

>Well, I certainly wasn't talking about individual stocks... there will always be some that are over-valued and some that are under-valued.

Well it wasn't relegated to only a few. Almost all tech stocks of established companies went up, and there was a general trend upward as well. I don't have the NASDAQ numbers here but the late nineties were very good, if I remember correctly.

>the forward looking value of the stocks was high, in anticipation of phenomenal growth.

I agree that the stocks were bouyed up by the anticipation of growth and great returns, however that failed to materialize leading to... the next point.

>That balloon was burst when it became apparent that money was going to be channeled back to the dinosaur business... and... it has to come from somewhere.

Here is where I disagree. The bubble burst IMHO when the vast majority of internet startups crashed and burned. As companies' VC money dried up they had to shut their doors, sell their stuff and go under. And the money stopped pouring in because no one could make a profitable business. Then the whole thing imploded. In other words all of those huge gains in stocks were for nothing because the investors were investing in businesses which hadn't proven they could turn a profit.

>And... nowhere did I "blame" Bush... I simply pointed out what the data seems to indicate.

That's true, there are just so many Bush haters on here I jumped to conclusions. My apologies.

>TANSTAAFL

I don't know this one, sorry.

-Comedian

Re:Oh, boy!

[abandonment]

>>Every economist is saying the economy is improving.

you been reading the wrong news sources

www.howestreet.com

want to see how the 'real' economy is working?

>>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.

instead, gwb decided to start an oil company with bin laden's BROTHER...oh no, bush is such a good guy, he didn't know...

sure, keep your head in the sand, it's safer that way.

www.whatreallyhappened.com

Re:Oh, boy!

[qw(name)]

Can't you just feel the love?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

No politician deserves credit for tax cuts unless they can cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay for them.

For more background on this, research the crowding out effect. The deficit is newly borrowed money. the crowding out effect predicts that borrowing money to enact fiscal policies crowds out other investment, and thereby reduces economic activity.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

These two accounts are in the same vein.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

Commondreams is a Bush-bashing leftwing site. How unsurprising that a Bush-bashing quote is found there.

Now the REAL question is: Did the person saying it manage to get a Harvard MBA, start a business, make millions managing a baseball team, beat an incumbent Governor, then win re-election with 70% of the vote ... all before becoming President? ... or accomplish anything *close* to that??

In other words, if these boobs are so much smarter than our President, why are they venting spleen on some obscure website, while the President is, er, well the President, kicking AQ butt in foreign lands, winning wars, updating medicare, cutting taxes, etc.?

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Yes, 9/11 happened days after Bush returned from the longest vacation any President has taken in the history of the United States.

I don't know what effect 9/11 had on the economy, but running around making enemies with half the world certainly isn't helping the economy.

It's Congress that defines the budget, not the president (he meerly recommends and approves).

The President went ahead and recommended budgets that included massive deficits. Furthermore, he didn't have to include the previous year's increases in his budget, but he did anyway. And he certainly didn't have to sign the budget.

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.

At a 3% inflation rate, the revenue would be up 34% over ten years. The reason you saw such large gains in '86, '87, '88, and '90 was because the goverment raised taxes to counter the massive deficit.

What good was all that extra revenue when 1/3 of the total budget was going towards interest on the national debt? To this day, we are still paying for the Reagan tax cuts!

Re:Oh, boy!

[Blondie-Wan]

Thanks for the links.

Re:Oh, boy!

[operagost]

That's a straw man argument. I never mentioned any specific case, did I? People are fired every day.

Re:Oh, boy!

[rico23]

FYI, the highest tax rate in the US is currently 36% (down from 39.5%). So you're saying the max rate should be raised by 14% (or about a third in real terms).

Re:Oh, boy!

[cayenne8]

But, by the time you add in state and local taxes....is a good bit higher than that....then, fica tax...medicare..etc.

You can get over 50% pretty quick.

Re:Oh, boy!

[jeabus]

And the government would do the same for me, I just haven't been smart or lucky enough to take advantage of those particular benefits. The same people that protect Gates' stuff are the same people who protect my stuff and your stuff.

What does cardboard have to do with government theft? Whether the government takes my mansion or my cardboard box makes little difference. The point is that they're not equitable in their taking. Stealing from the rich to give to the poor is still stealing.

Re:Oh, boy!

[jeabus]

Nonsense. Government paying for goods and services is not in anyway related. Should the government simply take those goods and services the way it takes my money? Instead of paying accountants and engineers and soldiers, it should just press them into service? Moreover, there are at least three parties in every government transaction: the people who they take the money from, the people who receive the good or service, and the people who provide it. Generally the government is just a middle man.

The rich do not benefit from the government anymore than you do. Bill Gates gets money from the government for providing a product to them. You benefit from "Global Dominance" just as much as Amaco because you buy energy from Amaco. Amaco could easily exist without the government, but it can't exist if people like don't buy their petroleum.

SS is just another tax, like FICA, Medicare and all other monies the goverment collects (see Helvering v. Davis and Flemming v. Nestor). Saying that people pay too much to SS but not enough to FICA is nonsense. All the taxes end up in the same place and get spent in the same way. The rest is just accounting BS.

Re:Oh, boy!

[ultranova]

no one should have to pay 50% and more of their income.

Of course, when they still get 10 times the net income I do, I find it somehwat difficult to find much pity in my heart towards the wallets of these poor, oppressed corporate heads. Especially when they make their money by bribing government to pass laws favouring their corporations and disfavouring the Little Man...

Re:Oh, boy!

[Anonymous Coward]

But it's their own damn fault?

Re:Oh, boy!

[yourmom16]

And the government would do the same for me, I just haven't been smart or lucky enough to take advantage of those particular benefits. The same people that protect Gates' stuff are the same people who protect my stuff and your stuff.

They are protecting more stuff, just as they are taking more stuff.

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?

[rjstanford]

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?

Why, the policymakers, of course! Silly question...

Re:Who to believe?

[4of12]

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?

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

are you serious? who can trust those wacky people who believe in evolution, the scientific method to prove or disprove things, and peer review.

much better to trust someone with moral clarity, integrity, and just knows what is right or wrong, good or evil.

sheesh get with the program.

Re:Who to believe?

[Cherveny]

I think this just shows what a number of scientists have been saying about Bush from the beginning, that he just does not trust, nor believe in science, nor the scientific community in general.

It started with small manipulations of results, or skewing of reports by ommiting crucial sections, but it just seems to be getting more and more blatant.

I think the growing number of prominent scientists speaking out, risking their chances of getting appointed to advisory panels, or getting federal funding, etc, is making the point more clear every day.

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?

[addaon]

I believe his scientific basis was reading the slashdot headline... although he may have actually read the article, too.

Generally, finding scientific proof that someone is saying something isn't much harder than going to news.google.com, in the worst case. Let me know if you need help.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

that includes you assmuncher.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

All the research I've done on this topic (low-intensity over several years) indicates that the truth is very close to the scientists' version. This administration does not want to be bothered by (certain) facts.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

So when are you going to get some scientists to start protesting about the "fact" of global warming? Interesting how they skip over that one and just pretend it's real (as in, due to man as opposed to just us heating up still from the last ice age which was only 20k years ago).

Re:Who to believe?

[Dan East]

Some of the best scientists, theorists and mathematicians in history had very abnormal social skills. The various physical properties that provide genius in one area very often lead to an imbalance resulting in a deficit in other mental skills. Autism (idiot savant) is the extreme example.

I'm certainly not trying to make the case that any of the individuals involved in this do not have social or political skills, but saying that they are for some reason the ultimate authority to make apolitical assessments is absurd. Of course they have an agenda of some kind, and it may well not be for the Greater Good of Humanity.

Dan East

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You think some 20 Nobel laureate scientists are above any political agenda? Are they not human? You think the Nobel Committee is without a political agenda? Never mind they once awarded Arafat, a terrorist, with the Nobel Prize. Never mind they award Jimmy Carter for the shameful North Korea Nuclear agreement in which later we found out that they were using it as a veil for their ongoing nuclear program. All this to embarrass Bush? Don't take my word for it. The head of the committee even admitted to this.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are trying to be funny.

Tye scary thing is, I think you are right.....

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?

[Ryan Amos]

John Ashcroft. He's on a mission from God, so you know he speaks the truth.

Re:Who to believe?

[Jeremy Erwin]

Those are Norwegian Nobel Prizes. Swedish Nobel Prizes are less political.

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?

[jxs2151]

..if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government...

Why on earth would you think that anyone associated with a University (most scientists are) these days is anything but a raging leftist-liberal? The statistics prove this (go find 'em yourself lazy-ass) and there can be no doubt of this influence on these scientists.

I stopped reading Scientific American because of the political bullshit in there. Scientists have gotten so political that your statement about trusting them is laughable.

The politics of this is blatant and I'll listen to scientist's political opinion's about the same time I'll listen to an actor's political opinions'

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

ahh but you bushdrones dont deal with 'middle' in anything. its always black or white/good or evil for you simpletons isnt it?

I dont think most supporters are agreeing with the scientists just because they published a report. Most supporters came to their own conclusions on how biased and downright stupid the bush administration is, and latch on to any source that agrees with them, in this case a bunch of nobel laureates.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

hmmm awarding Arafat and Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize is not political. Right.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

That's not the point.

dickhead

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

That is exactly the point of the article, you fucking idiot.

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?

[slashdrone]

Bush is evil. These scientists are 100% correct.

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?

[MillionthMonkey]

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.

So what if it is? That doesn't make it "wrong", if it cites verifiable facts and derives plausible conclusions from them.

There really is a reality out there at some point. You can't just get lazy and accuse all your opponents of "bias" without even offering anything to support it. It leads to a weird sort of "moral relativism" where stupid ideas are considered just as good as good ideas because otherwise you're "biased". Only politically correct facts matter.

Note the rise of "good science" as a political code phrase only recently. It used to mean doing good statistics, designing correct experimental protocols, etc. Now it means you get politically correct or politically convenient results. When the Bush Administration prattles on about "good science" this is what they are really talking about. The same thing happened to "good intelligence"- the spooks are quietly having their own similar problems.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

A physicist might be hyper-brilliant in their field, but that no more qualifies her or him to adjudicate the *use* of nuclear weapons,

Thats not what this is about, and its not what you're saying. This is a hyper-brilliant scientist (or, rather a collection of hyper-brilliant scientists), saying: "The President is telling the country things about science that are not true"

Re:Who to believe?

[Mablung]

Honestly, the fact that "20 Nobel laureates" signed didn't mean that much to me. But the NYTimes article included these names:

"David Baltimore and Harold Varmus, both biomedical researchers, and Leon M. Lederman, Norman F. Ramsey and Steven Weinberg, who are physicists"

All of these (except for Ramsey, who I've not heard of) are people I've come to trust.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is evil, These scientists are 99% correct.

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?

[Valfufner]

Swedish prizes have academic merit. The Nobel Peace Prize is the only one given out in Norway, and is entirely political. Generally speaking the Nobel Prize winners in the science are exceedingly good scientists who have contributed greatly to their fields. They tend to be either non-political in nature, or very clear in their political stance.

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?

[ch-chuck]

if you're a good enough scientist to make a breakthrough worthy of a Nobel prize,

One famous counterexample: William Shockley, Nobel Prize winner and his stand on racism. It's no suprise that someone can be an advanced wizard in one subject and completely off base in another.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

True that man, it is the point. Can't believe some of the retards that can`t see it.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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. "

Not so fast. The debate about global warming is not whether the temperature is increasing, but how fast and to what extent human activity is responsible for it. The earth's climate changes on its own, so you can't just use evidence of climate change as proof that pollution is having a significant impact. Was man responsible for the "global warming" that occured after the last ice age? Certainly not. Are we responsible for the melting of the polar ice caps? I don't know, but there's still plenty of debate on the issue.

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?

[schon]

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature.

Let me say that I agree with this part of your post 100% - it seems clear to me that this is the case, and I also believe that something must be done about it, soon.

It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong

This is where I disagree with you - not with your conclusion about global warming, but with the assumptions you come to after reaching that conclusion.

First of all, it may be proven, but that doesn't mean that it no longer needs study. There is a lot we don't know about the environment, and studying temperatures is one way to gain more knowledge.

And secondly, stating that anybody is "wrong" is closed-minded thinking. By definition, no good scientist will ever close their mind to an alternate point of view.

Having said that, I don't think it's right to put off doing something about global warming, just that while we're formulating or implementing a plan, we shouldn't close our minds to any new evidence that may arise.

Re:Who to believe?

[poot_rootbeer]

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.

To the best of humankind's current knowledge, at least. I'm willing to accept that those 20 Nobel laureates MAY be proven wrong by future discoveries, but it doesn't logically follow that the administration's stance, that these leaders of the scientific community MUST be wrong, is valid.

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?

[love2hateMS]

Scientists are some of the biggest liars in the world. They are like lemmings, and once the pack starts to move one way, they never QUESTION THE ASSUMPTIONS, and they all follow.

Bush may be very well guilty as charged, but 20 nobel laureates? Big deal. They can choose WHICH scientific "facts" they use to justify themselves.

I had a great teacher who once said, "Intellectuals can rationalize anything."

Bingo.

Re:Who to believe?

[JCMay]

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.

As an engineer and veteran science fair judge, I disagree with your conclusions with regard to "proven." There has been no experiments done that do not have serious design flaws or uncontrolled confounding factors to obscure the results. How do human CO2 emissions compare with natural CO2 emissions from both geologic and organic sources? How does one go about measuring the output of these three sources? What about extraterrestrial sources (comets, meteors, etc)?

Also, I don't see how anyone could say "the fact of evolution" with a straight face. Facts are demonstrable; what most people consider evolution, the change of one species into another over time, has never been demonstrated. There is a theory that some scientists have used to explain the wide variety of speieces evident in the world, but it's not a fact.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the best post I've seen on this yammering website in a long time.

Slashdot editors are not responsible for my posted views. They've got enough troubles supporting their own.

Clincher.

Re:Who to believe?

[rocketjam]

You're right that scientists are going to be as prone to political bias as anyone, whether knowingly or not. The reason I would tend to trust their judgement on this issue, however, is the fact that this administration has demonstrated itself to be extremely ideological and to let that ideology dictate their actions and policies to the virtual exclusion of any moderating facts or influences. As an example, you could argue that the reason this administration read the pre-Iraq war intelligence so badly was due to their ideology tainting their ability to examine the data objectively.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

>> I wouldn't doubt that another panel of equally qualified people would come to somewhat different conclusions.
Equally qualified as scientists, or equally qualified as pundits? If the former, it's my opinion that you're incorrect. If the latter, you're right, they already did.. this is about people pointing out inconsistensies in what they said on behalf of the white house.

As far as having political axes to grind, I'll be the first to point out that "scientists" tend largely to be liberal in their thinking. But in cases like this it's totally besides the point.
If 1+1=2, it doesn't matter who says it because it's a fact. If someone refutes that 1+1=2 on the grounds that it comes from a biased source, that person obviously has an agenda. F*ing duh. We're not talking about controversial cutting edge theoretical physics here. We're talking about well researched and well debated issues here. The conservative apologists who post here about bias are blatant frauds. You're accusing scientists of falsifying their positions for political advantage? (sarcasm)Oh, that's *ever* so much more likely than Bush manipulating and distorting public perception for political ends. Because of course, politicians always eschew dishonesty and scientists don't face any kind of peer review of their positions.(/sarcasm)

Sadly, when someone refutes that global warming is happening, or somesuch, people view the debate with political glasses instead of truthful ones. It only happens because many people are incapable of understanding the actual conversation.

The things I've heard from the white house recently have been nothing less than intellectually dishonest. The chapter on global warming was supposedly removed because (accd'ng to bush) "there was no scientific consensus on global warming." In fact there was worldwide consensus. The head of the EPA was a staunch ally of the Bush administration. She left after the report was published, but denied it had anything to do with the report. She parrotted bush's every excuse. Isn't the head of the EPA supposed to care more about protecting the environment (or at least doing their f*ing JOB) more than bolstering the decisions of an administration? When was the last time your local fire department showed up at a 5 alarm inferno and told the house's owners "I see your house is nice and warm, but there's no consensus that it's a fire. So, there's no problem and please don't call us unless you actually have a fire". Never, because you'd rip their throats out for lying to your face like that.

Ever heard the phrase "On Board"? In today's white house, everyone is "on board". That means that if your boss tells you to go lie to people who trust you significantly for the good of the party, you have 2 choices: decline and lose your job, or go lie the best you can. Bush tells people how to think, and they do it, or someone else will.

George Bush is worse than a fascist. He is a parasite. He is illegitimate. He is a traitor. Hey Bush, there's "No scientific consensus" that drinking bleach mixed with ammonia is harmful. Do us a favor and run with that.

>> The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!"
Just like the shallow minded conservadrones will say exactly what you're saying... "Give bush some slack", "scientists are liberal, therefore biased, therefore untrustworthy", "Only liberals believe this for a second" etc.

>> 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.
Why is it that conservatives always want to negotiate the truth when it's against them? Did you all sleep through high school science? The Truth is Not Negotiable. That's what makes it the truth. I don't care how much you're going to cut taxes this year, my grandkids can't breathe a tax cut. And since I already did my research, have been for a while now, I'm not going to "go do more research" every time we disagree. Sometimes you're right, sometimes you're wrong. But no amount of research can make 1+1=3.

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?

[Jim Starx]

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?

But success in the scientific field certainly gives someone the right to comment on misapropriation of scientific fact.

It's also worth noting that an actor was elected president. Obviosly they are just as capable of forming a political opinion. Knowone here believe that scientists aren't without political leanings. But the scientific field as a whole is based in objectivity, whereas the political field is incapable of it.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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." The main point that the statement makes is not that the administration is wrong about particular issues, but that the administration has repeatedly sought to edit or remove scientific studies which seem to go against the administration's pre-conceived political agenda. It's tough to "do some research on your own" if scientific studies which don't reach a certain conclusion are being swept under the rug.

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

[blockquote]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?[/blockquote]This would seem a valid question unless you had already realized that the Nobel has a very left-leaning selection process that is itself somewhat political (not scientific).

Re:Who to believe?

[Original AIDS Monkey]

Well, there seem to be no shortage of PhDs who agree that PhDs need more government funding....

Re:Who to believe?

[bluenawab]

and how does on "prove" that they are trustworthy or not? are you going to find all the facts on your own? have you bothered to read the report before saying that they are biased and untrustworthy? why are you so biased against it though? if you are expressing your opinion, why don;t you let them express theirs? they aren't asking you to join them, they simply stated why they are concerned with this administration. read the damned report.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

yeah,and the Bush administration at that! I hope none of these scientists have wifes working under cover for the CIA.

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?

[Roto-Rooter Man]

It's no suprise that someone can be an advanced wizard in one subject and completely off base in another.

Sssshhhh.... you might wake up the Chomsky-bots.

Re:Who to believe?

[bloggins02]

War is Peace, brother. You sir, are a politically correct, commie pinko, marxist cant spouting anticapitalist lacky! The issue isn't the Bush administration. You sir, are a flag waving, right wing, conservative neonazi, capitalist pig!

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?

[cardshark2001]

Also, I don't see how anyone could say "the fact of evolution" with a straight face. Facts are demonstrable; what most people consider evolution, the change of one species into another over time, has never been demonstrated. There is a theory that some scientists have used to explain the wide variety of speieces evident in the world, but it's not a fact.

First off, speciation is not the only form of evolution, and even if it were true that we had never observed it (it is NOT true however), that would not be a disproof of evolution. It's one of the many false disproofs that pseudo-scientists love to use, but it has no basis in the actual, erm, science.

Evolution has occurred, and that is a fact. And my face is straight.

Re:Who to believe?

[Wastl]

What science are you in? As I am myself a scientist, I came to realise that there are different kinds of science. Social scientists tend to find their own truths and fight over it. Truth in this sense is not absolute, it depends on the proponent. Natural sciences, however, are much more focussed on the one truth which can be proved either by formal methods (which themselves are known to be correct) or by facts. Granted, there is still dispute over this and that in natural sciences, but much less so than in social sciences.

If a nobel laureate (of the natural sciences) says that someone is twisting the truth, then it should make you think. If 20 nobel laureates do so, then even more.

Sebastian

Re:Who to believe?

[Roto-Rooter Man]

Consensus != Proof See also: flat earth theory, global cooling, spontaneous generation

Re:Who to believe?

[mrtrumbe]

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.

How this got modded insightful is beyond me.

Evolution happens. That is a fact. It is a scientifically observable fact.

The mechanisms of how things evolve is a theory.

You can read all about this here. One more time: evolution has been observed many, many times and is now accepted as fact by the scientific community. However, many scientists still disagree about how evolution happens, and we only have a theory to describe this mechanism.

What really irritates my about this post is how bloody confident the poster is that his parent was wrong. How can a person be so sure and so clueless at the same time?

Taft

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I dont belive they give out Nobel laureates for the asking. These 20 very different brillant minds that have been recognized for their contributions to humanity. I dont think that there is a more qualifed panel available. The accuracy of information is Fundemental to the scientific method. So, I would say that they are pissed at their work being messed with and distorted by politicans with an agenda to push.
johnb

how can you trust someone who dosent trust anyone...

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

But success in the scientific field certainly gives someone the right to comment on misapropriation of scientific fact.

Who knew that leadership was "science," that spooks were "scientists," and that taking a calculated risk was a "scientific fact?" I guess the next step is to consider the entire world a "laboratory," and just set up scientists as our philosopher/kings.

Seems anyone will believe anything under the rubric of "science." Yet facts that anyone can see like "the government is spending too much" are conveniently forgotten while the partisans continue to bang the drum: "Government must do MORE!"

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

the fact of evolution

You wanna talk about facts? Let's talk about facts.

Fact: evolution has never been observed.

"Whaa? How can that be?" It's like this: evolution refers to the process of change over time as a response to natural pressures that results in speciation.

See that last part? It's important: results in speciation. Organisms within a species change over time, from generation to generation. That's clear from our observations of the world around us. But we have never observed speciation. We've never observed the instantiation of a new species.

So there is no "fact of evolution." There's just a theory. The theory says that the process of change over time within species, when extended over a long-enough timeline, can result in the wide diversity of genetically incompatible species we see around us. It's how we suspect that people and elephants and chickens and whales and ants all evolved from a single, distant ancestor.

But we have never observed it, and it is just a theory.

Now... you wanna back the hell off of your high horse, there, buddy?

Re:Who to believe?

[DMadCat]

Yes, well, I think there are reasonable explanations for nearly all the things in your opinion, and rather than look for what those explanations might be, I think the readers might be somewhat biased in favor of a sweeping opinion of what this administration is all about, and I just don't think that's justified.

Re:Who to believe?

[kisak]

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?

Well, here it is scientist with success in science (if you have a Noble prize, what more can you ask for proof) having opinions about science. I can not see why the media should be blamed for listening to this, even though their conclusions have political implications unpopular to the current ruler.

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.

The left/right scale is a bit limited when discussing politics and policies, but there is no necessity to have personal insecurity to be a leftist as you call them. Or maybe this is your defence mechanism when confronted with views that challenge your world view; it is something wrong with them so I won't listen to their arguments.

Re:Who to believe?

[acsinc]

You almost always have excellent posts and I find your ideas interesting (even though I don't agree with everything). Do you maintain a website or a blog?

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

I think you should look into how Nobel prizes are given. We are not just talking about some scientists from Podunk University.

Obviously you have no grasp on how prestigious and respected this prize is.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

So we should believe that Politician is being less political than a bunch of highly qualified scientists who were looking out for our health? Until you show me proof that these people all have a history of left wing politics I'm inclined to believe them over Bush. Oh the other hand there is proof that Bush has misled the American people on more than one occasion and is hostile to any laws where businesses are held accountable.

"In short, you shouldn't trust anyone"

Yea because that's a great way to solve everything. At some point you have to put your faith behind something. You can't just discredit everything with that argument.

Lastly it doesn't make us shallow-minded because we dislike Bush. There are a lot of reasons to dislike him. In his term he's done more wrong than right and his domestic and foreign policies are a total disaster. His ties to oil and big business have clearly dictated his politics. He uses terrorism as a political tool in order to enforce draconian anti-freedom laws. He hopes to get America so terrified that they are afraid to elect someone who might be less "tough" on terrorists. He's hasn't mastered the english language. He completely ignores the blooming deficit and passed an ill advised tax cut which only served to help the wealthiest of the wealthy. He's willing to rape the constitution in order to further his own religious beliefs. He's anti-consumer and anti-worker. He believes in holding people without representation indefinitely(is this Russia 1950's?). Again, he's a liar. In short he's under qualified and was a total failure(not to mention a drunk and coke head) in everything he's done in life up until he stole the last Election.

So ya, maybe I'm a slashdrone. But Bush is a moron.

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?

[RayBender]

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.

I could not disagree more strongly with that statement. First of all, the physicist is much more likely to understand the impact such a weapon might have, purely because they have a better grasp of the energies and processes involved. A physicist knows the difference between a kilton and a megaton - your average bowler's eyes would glaze over talking about it. A physicist will know, or be able to calculate, if you are talking about destroying a city block, or a city.

Second, someone who has demonstrated an intellectual capacity beyond the average (sometimes very far beyond the average) may actually just happen to be smarter than the average. I don't know about you, but I'd rather have smart people in charge. Maybe that makes you insecure, but so be it.

So, getting back on topic; a bunch of smart, well-educated people have opinions that differ from those of the president - and apparently also you. These guys are generally acknowledged to be masters of their fields, and they are saying that the president is screwing up badly in areas where they are experts. You're going with the bozo. I'd rather put my money with the smart guys. If it were a bunch of doctors who disagreed with the president on the best way to operate on your heart, who would you go with?

Dismissing them as "academics" merely betrays your ignorance and anti-intellectual attitude.

Re:Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

There's the problem: ANYBODY thinking that "nobel laureate" means NEUTRAL.

Come on, now. I never suggested they were neutral parties. Address what I say, not some extrapolated extreme.

These twenty Nobel laureates are, in my opinion, considerably more likely than anybody else to be able to present a rational, objective view of the role of science in government today. If you disagree with my assessment, please state who you think is better positioned to produce a rational, obejctive view of this situation. Kindly refrain from saying I'm wrong because there's no way that Nobel laureates are devoid of political opinion.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rostin]

There are precious few scientific "facts," and therein lies the difficulty. The "facts" of science are really just the observations. Tying the observations together into theories and laws and meaningful conclusions is not a strictly mechanical process and involves a certain level of subjectivity.

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!"

Sure, these scientists are well-regarded. 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."

Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report. I can easily see how a group of politically motivated Nobel laureates could (perhaps even unconsciously) allow some bias to creep into this report. How tempting would it be to use a little of the personal prestige you've earned to have things your way?

It's questionable to me that their reputations are really on the line. In most people's minds, again, their prestige removes all doubt. The report is so politically charged (whether they intended it to be or not) that any questions against them or their opponents will automatically be dismissed as posturing. Also, there is a difference between bad science (which could tarnish their reputations among other scientists) and bad social/political recommendations based on fine science. I don't think any of these people are going to be shunned by other scientists for having the wrong political views about what should be done about the scientific data.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rotten168]

No you should check your's. He's right, it's called the Theory of Evolution for a reason. Accepting that it's a theory is not equivalent to being a creationist.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Of course that side-steps the point. The best scientific evidence indicates one thing. A group of politicians don't like what science has to say so they seek advice from another set of scientists (paid by companies with a financial stake in the game) or just ignore the science entirely.

There is a difference between taking science with a grain of salt and only listening when it matches what you want to be true.

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

and how does on "prove" that they are trustworthy or not? are you going to find all the facts on your own? have you bothered to read the report before saying that they are biased and untrustworthy? why are you so biased against it though? if you are expressing your opinion, why don;t you let them express theirs? they aren't asking you to join them, they simply stated why they are concerned with this administration. read the damned report.

Nobody has questioned the "facts." I think the only thing under question here is the timing of (long after the war ended, and before the election) and the motivation behind the emergence of these facts. If these facts REALLY MATTERED for anything other than partisan fodder, they would have been published in a like manner BEFORE THE WAR.

Re:Who to believe?

[dillon_rinker]

I suspect that the science in question here, though, isn't traditional science at all; it's computer simulations. 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? Get real.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

1) Letting your biases interfer with your science is not good science.
2) The fact that they've earned the esteem of their colleages means they can do good science.
3) They've learned to put their biases aside when doing science. (from 1 & 2)

Re:Who to believe?

[ajs]

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

That's not at all what he said. What he said was that it was released as a report on "The Bush Administration" rather than on the activities of the agencies that have outlasted and will outlast the Bush Administration like the DoD, the CDC, etc. This was a political statement aimed squarely at a particular administration.

That doesn't make it wrong, but it certainly does turn on my bias-detection filters...

Re:Who to believe?

[salesgeek]

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.

Warning Karma Killing Rant Follows:

Well, whatever works :) This is so so so true. In the last 20 years I've watched colleges go from institutes of higher learning to becoming business incubators where the goal is to monetize inovation that occures on campus. No longer is the pursuit of truth the goal of most campuses. It's the pursuit of the almighty buck. How can we monetize a professor's research?

Given the trend towards commercialization of the campus, it's not surprising that the science community objects to Bush's conservative administration: They aren't handing money out hand over fist to the science establishment. We announce a Mars program. The scientific community lets out a collective squeal because they didn't get money for their pet project using embryonic stem cells that will save the world from flesh eating bacteria created increased cosmic ray exposure of blue green alge due to ozone layer thinning and acid rain exposure.

Frankly I'm glad we're going to mars. If things keep up the way they have I'll open the first off world affiliate station of the Old Curmudgeon Network.

Re:Who to believe?

[swillden]

You almost always have excellent posts and I find your ideas interesting (even though I don't agree with everything). Do you maintain a website or a blog?

You forgot to ask about his newsletter.

Re:Who to believe?

[Stray7Xi]

I'm not arguing about the conclusions they found. But when I hear this argument that scientists should be trusted because their job is seeking truth... It's like saying that lawyers should be trusted because their job is seeking justice.

Most scientists get their money either from Academia or by Grants. Academia is a political tool.. and grants are how you buy scientists to research your conclusion. Where are the scientists that aren't for sale? I'd assume likely poor.

Re:Who to believe?

[tunabomber]

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.

Interestingly, I read an article in Fortune not to long ago that says that the Pentagon is studying the possibility that the climate in the Atlantic could suddenly change, causing temperatures in the U.S. and Europe to drop and creating a national security issue as third-world governments collapse and declare wars on each other due turmoil caused by famine.
So already, parts of the administration are considering global climate change to be too real to be ignored.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

...well, partly because they've dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific truth.

On the public's dime. Gee, I wonder if there's an incentive to keep the pork barrel full?


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.

The Nobel Prize selection committee is devoid of politics?

Re:Who to believe?

[mesocyclone]

I find it amusing that the example you choose happens to be one where the answer is, in fact, not known.

You could have picked a whole lot of issues where science provides a solid truth. Instead you picked anthropogenic global warming, which is still a matter of dispute among specialists (most agree with the theory but there are large gaps in information, low quality data, and an inadequately long time series).

Had you picked something else - say that inheritance is via DNA - you would at least have an example that every responsible scientist agrees with.

Furthermore, the assertions against the administration are not scientific assertions, but rather social assertions. That they are made by scientists does not make them scientific.

For example, did the UCS report go through independent peer review?

Finally, the UCS is not an "independent" organization. It is an organization with a long history of supporting the side of a debate held by the left. In other words, it is a political organization, with a political agenda, that a number of scientists agree with. In 1984 UCS openly supported Walter Mondale, with a 15 city tour of their members. It is part of the group that persecuted Bjorn Lomborg.

The idea that because scientific work involves discovering facts of nature, scientists are arbiters of truth, is laughable. Scientists are usually very narrow specialists, with deep knowledge in one area. Within that area, if it is worthy of research, there are almost always disagreements, until definitive experiments are done and replicated (try doing that with anthropogenic global warming, by the way).

Furthermore scientists are human. They have biases. They have agendas. They have blindspots.

By the way, did the UCS complain when the Clinton administration was suppressing research that did not support Al Gore's environmental agenda? I know people who had to be very careful what they said in public, and knew they would not get funded submitting research proposals likely to produce uncertainty about global warming forecasts.

When the government pays for science, the science will be subject to political steering.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rotten168]

Well the fact that evolutions supposedly takes thousands or millions of years makes it hard to accept that it's 'scientifically' observable. Perhaps to micro-organisms it is, but not in advanced life.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that most people are suggesting that they are "less prone to political bias" than those with a financial stake in the game and the politicians they finance.

Re:Who to believe?

[maomoondog]

As a scientist, were you planning on providing any footnotes, citations, or maybe even anecdotal details to elaborate on that giant fart of rhetoric? I'm not even disagreeing, but sheesh man -- it's deplorable that someone can get up to +5 insightful by just making a bunch of unsupported iconoclastic statements in a row.

Re:Who to believe?

[b-baggins]

This would be the same Nobel committee that admitted it gave the award to Carter to make a political statement to Bush?

The Union of Concerned Scientists is an organization of politcally liberal scientists. They belong to the organization because of the organization's POLITICAL goals.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rotten168]

Actually it serves leftist anti-capitalist ideology quite well.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

AAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!

When you're ready to join the real world, we'll be waiting for you.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "Kant spouting" , not "cant spouting"

Cheers though.

Re:Who to believe?

[Monkelectric]

if you want to understand bush a bit better, read this

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Which party stands to gain more? The policy mankers or the ones calling them out, in this case 20 extremely credible men with nothing to gain, and much to lose?

This is such a gargantuan no-brainer, I would venture to say you sir, are an idiot.

Re:Who to believe?

[raga]

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.

Yeah right. Show me a pin-setter at the local bowling alley who knows that the half-life of Uranium-235 is ~ 710,000,000 years, Uranium-238 is ~ 4,500,000,000 years, and has factored that into his decision to *use* a fission device on his home planet, and I might show you a hyper-brilliant (sic) physicist.

cheers- raga

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?

[tgibbs]

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

They aren't. Of course, scientists are educated people, and educated people tend to be a bit more liberal on the average. But scientists are mainly concerned with science, and the Bush administration and the Republican Party have actually been relatively generous in supporting scientific research. So normally, scientists would tend to be supportive, or at least not rock the boat. However, nothing enrages scientists more than having their findings distorted and misstated, and it is clear from the scientific press that the Bush Administration has done this repeatedly, meddling far more than previous administrations.

Basically, it looks like the Bush administration has taken about the same approach to interpreting scientific data that they took to interpreting the pre-war intelligence reports about Iraq. They already think they know the answer, so they simply discard anything that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. This is the sort of thing that really pisses off scientists.

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

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.

The fact also is this: this paper has been conveniently released after the fact and before the election. Ask yourself, if these "scientific" facts were so vital to the question of the war and our leadership, why weren't they promulgated before the war?


My personal "theory" on this is that now that the war has happened and the risks have not panned out, it's time to bicker by any means necessarily and politically destroy the people who made the policies.


If these Nobel scientists had made these same scientific pronouncements before the war, they would have put their reputations on the line because finding chemicals and WMDs would have put egg on their face. Conveniently releasing the "scientific fact" after all the risk seems to have dissipated is more like arm-chair quarterbacking now for political purposes, especially when there are primaries going on and an ensuing election in the next few months.

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature.

Someone else said this better than I can a few months ago, but I can't find it, so I'll do my best to replicate it. (Remember, this is an estimation at best, but it should illustrate the point I am trying to make).

The best I could find on Google is that CO2 emissions from industrial processes account for about 30 million tons. This sounds reasonable to me, anyone have a better figure?

Humans exhale CO2 as part of the normal breathing process. Let's assume for the sake of this simplified example that an average human breathes 20 times a minute. If I remember correctly, average exhalation volume of air is 2.5 liters or so, of which 20% or so is CO2 (If any of my figures are inaccurate, please correct them). Therefore, there is about half a liter of CO2 in one exhalation, which would be about a gram (this is a roundoff to make my next calculations easier). This results in 20 grams of CO2 produced by one adult human in a minute. There are 60*24*365.25, or 525960 minutes in a year, which means one human exhales 10,519,200 grams, or 10,519.2 kilograms, of CO2 in a year. Assuming a world population of six billion humans (don't point out that I'm discounting other species, I know and I'm doing it to keep this from getting too long), humans exhale 63,115,200,000,000 kilograms of CO2 in a year, or 6.95725989 x 10^10 tons of CO2 in a year. Now you see why exact figures don't matter all that much for the purposes of the example (if anyone has better ones than mine, though, please correct me).

It's proven, and it doesn't need more study.

Not very scientific there, everything can use more study. If there is a problem with carbon dioxide, my admittedly rough figures don't show it coming from industrial emissions.

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.

Faulty logic if I ever heard it. The only fundamental fact in science is that everything should be questioned, that nothing is ever proven. For the record, I think the theory of evolution is the best one on the general subject that we currently have, but that's an aside. Another aside, I know someone else who says things like "If you disagree with me, you are wrong." Hint: he holds a job very high up in the current administration.

And just to be sure I don't leave anyone out while I'm pissing people off, I'll throw in a jab at the other side. Yes, it is true that global warming and catastrophic human destruction of the planet is not a foregone conclusion. No, that doesn't mean that you should go buy a Ford Expedition and dump its used oil on your lawn. It still makes sense to minimize your own pollution of the environment. As my father says, "Don't shit where you eat."

Don't just spew your particular party line without even considering what you're saying. Look at all sides of the issue, and come up with your own informed opinion. It makes you look smarter that way.

Afterthought: Am I feeding a troll? Oh, well.

Re:Who to believe?

[Saeed al-Sahaf]

how can you release something like this and NOT make it political?

So true. It just sounds so silly when som politico comes out and say something like "this has been so politisized!" Well, like, yes... You guys are politicians, right?

Re:Who to believe?

[argStyopa]

This is a hyper-brilliant scientist (or, rather a collection of hyper-brilliant scientists), saying: "The President is telling the country things about science that are not true"

Well, it's not a clear as you (or the UCS) would make it seem. A random collection of points:

For example, an early reference says that the Administration "blatantly tampered with the integrity of scientific analysis" by editing the findings on a 6/03 EPA report. They say things like that the administration wanted so many words like "may" and "potentially" that it would have inserted "uncertainty...where there is essentially none."

No uncertainty on the human impact on climate change? I'm not a atmospheric scientist, but I think it's abundantly clear that there IS uncertainty, and there IS dispute among many 'experts' on both sides. For the EPA to attempt to whitewash the issue and claim certainty is at LEAST as damnable an offense, no?

Another case of such 'horrible' conduct by the Administration involves the effective "censorship" by the CEQ of a carbon sequestration brochure put out by the NRCS. Please, talk about reaching. The NRCS had already put out more than 300,000 of the brochures, and they wanted to do a Spanish edition too. Ever sit in a government office? Ever see the giant piles of beautifully printed brochures that sit gathering dust? Aside from killing the whole spanish-language thing (which IS a political decision, not a science question), personally I'd have cancelled it too. 300,000 brochures that nobody reads is probably enough, self-justifying bureacrats aside.

Mercury reports: they claim that the White house 'stalled' it and only released it because an EPA staffer leaked it. Proof, or speculation? It's certainly PRESENTED as a hard fact.

The Sierra Nevada Framework: let's see, a *highly* political and Green-biased management plan that was adopted as part of a previous administration's last-minute tidalwave of rule implementations and regulations? Heavens, who could object to such a thing?!

They dislike the new rule change that prevents government-funded scientists from acting as peer-reviewers. Not only does that mean that government scientists are relegated to less 'stage time' among their peers, but if they want to have a 'voice' in such a process, they have to get off the government teat? I find that hard to dispute.

They criticize the appointment to the FDA's RHAC of an OB-Gyn with "highly partisan political views". I'm going to take a WILD guess that he's conservative. I don't recall any complaints from the UCS about the appointment of ardent liberals during the Clinton administration? Isn't that funny?

I'll admit, I don't have time to RTFA completely, but they use loaded language, supposition, and hyperbole to make a point where the truth is obscured by the grandstanding.

Maybe they'd have more credibility if they actually acted as a neutral body, critical of 'bad science' instead of cheerleading adjunct to the DNC.

Re:Who to believe?

[fireduck]

fair enough. Except this panel (from the cursory glance I gave it) comprises experts in the fields in which they are criticizing. For example, Sherwood Roland received his Nobel Prize for science related to atmospheric chemistry. Hence, he seems fairly qualified to discuss the scientific tampering the Bush administration has performed on issues of global warming, which is one of the first issues addressed in the report.

Re:Who to believe?

[jeabus]

To quote Aristotle:

Man is naturally a political animal.

Just because you've won a Nobel Prize doesn't mean that you're unbiased and completely objective.

Re:Who to believe?

[LarsWestergren]

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? Get real.

"We can't predict if an electron will go left or right, but we can predict that a lamp gets turned on if we flick a switch? Get real."

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

1) Yeah, it's not like Carter did anything with the Israeli-Palestinian conflict when he was in office.

2) You notice that the report was signed by "60 leading scientists--including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents" not just politicians.

I guess that's besides the point. You seem to be saying that the Nobel is worth nothing. I guess that's your prerogative.

Re:Who to believe?

[argStyopa]

So, the smart people you know have "left" political leanings? Maybe this should tell you something.

Maybe the "otherwise" was unclear?
Before you try to be clever, perhaps you should read something a couple of times so the meaning sinks in.

Re:Who to believe?

[caseydk]

I find it interesting that he only responded to the first line of my reply.

Either he:
* read no further,
* ignored the rest purposely, or
* does not have facts to support his assertion.

Unfortunately, we don't have enough information to determine which possibility is correct.

Re:Who to believe?

[FooGoo]

He's stating his opinion. You forget this is /. there are no facts here.

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?

[|/|/|||]

More to the point, nothing can ever be proven . If I see a ball fall to the ground, I can't prove that it is under the influence of gravity - I can't even prove that the ball exists. All I can do is apply the best theories that we have (several theories would be involved, in order to explain everything from the relationship between the ball in my mind and the "real" ball, to the reason why the ball appears to be moving) and assume that the theories are close enough to reality for my purposes. If I suspect that a theory is not close to reality, then I have to come up with a better theory, or work with the current best.

The theory of evolution is not a "fact," because it is not a piece of data. It is a theory, i.e. the best explanation we have. In fact, I think it is the only theory we have as of today that explains the origins of biological organisms. There are lots of hypotheses out there, but none of them even come close to being theories.

Re:Who to believe?

[infochuck]

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.

Waittaminnet. If another panel was "equally qualified", they would, presumably, have "more education or experience", as you say (how could they be equally qualified with less education/experience?), and hence would have just as much of "an axe to grind" - so why would they come to a different conclusion?

Re:Who to believe?

[abigor]

There's actually almost no debate on the issue, except amongst people who let ideology clobber their ability to view cold, hard, data.

For example, ice core sampling from Canada, Greenland, Antarctica, and so forth show abrupt greenhouse gas increases that coincide very strongly with human activity. Very few atmospheric scientists argue against data like this; as a previous poster said, it would be like arguing against evolution. The only basis for doing so would be that it somehow counters your personal belief system.

I find that most of those who bring up the "there's debate on the issue" or "it's junk science" arguments are arguing from belief, not fact, and as a bonus, they tend to have no scientific training whatsoever.

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

So true. It just sounds so silly when som politico comes out and say something like "this has been so politisized!" Well, like, yes... You guys are politicians, right?

There is a constant push to one-up the other side in political discussions. Posing as "above the fray" is one way to make yourself look good without actually being any better than your opponents.

The politically savy will note that the translation for a claim of "playing politics" is usually: "Look at those bastards! They're doign the same thing to me that I did to them when they were trying to get their bill through! The NERVE!"

Re:Who to believe?

[div_2n]

Actually, measurements of carbon dioxide emissions taken from ice bubbles in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets show a huge increase in the ppm from pre-Industrial Revolution to now. From the Industrial Revolution to 1958, the ppm grew from 280 ppm to 315 ppm. From 1958 until now the ppm has grown from 315 to over 350 ppm in 1987 (1). Can that increase be justified by increased natural carbon dioxide production or could it be more closely tied to human production?

In case you aren't counting, from sometime in the 1700's to 1958, carbon monoxide rose 35 ppm. It took just 29 years for the same amount of increase to take place.

(1) U. Siegenthaler and H. Oeschger, "Biospherice CO2 Emissions during the Past 200 Years Reconstructed by Deconvolution of Ice Core Data," Tellus, vol. 39B (1987): 140-154

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

He is commenting; not stating or affirming.

And his comment makes quite a bit of sense.

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

In 1984 UCS openly supported Walter Mondale, with a 15 city tour of their members.

15 city tour? You mean that some of 8 members had to go to two cities? ;)

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?

[Shuh]

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.

Right. And perhaps these scientists and intellectuals will also realize that this report has come out with the risk-of-WMD curve at a minimum point and the political-fodder-for-election curve at a maximum point.

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

Fact: evolution has never been observed.

"Whaa? How can that be?" It's like this: evolution refers to the process of change over time as a response to natural pressures that results in speciation.

False. Evolution has been observed. The professional Creationists no longer make this claim. These days, they accept that species can arise by Darwinian mechanisms, but insist that a new "kind" cannot arise. This puts them on safe ground, since "species" has a scientific definition, but "kind" is scientifically meaningless.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are precious few scientific "facts," and therein lies the difficulty. The "facts" of science are really just the observations. Tying the observations together into theories and laws and meaningful conclusions is not a strictly mechanical process and involves a certain level of subjectivity.

Like the Earth is round, it revolves around the sun in an elliptical orbit, mass's relation to speed, gravity, most concrete mathematics, DNA is passed on through hereditary... etc etc...

Yea there are few "facts."

Shut the fuck up.

-- You can't beat Republicans with rhetoric, they're too good at it. You gotta beat them with facts... they have none.

Re:Who to believe?

[4of12]

Generally, finding scientific proof that someone is saying something isn't much harder than going to news.google.com, in the worst case. Let me know if you need help.

I do need help.

News articles do indeed show that the scientists are saying something. But that's not in dispute.

Where I have difficulty is in finding evidence that:

these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.

My point was only that, until I see evidence of partisan motivation and evidence of an attempt to create a political issue, then, as a scientist, I cannot justify that conclusion.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In case you aren't counting, from sometime in the 1700's to 1958, carbon monoxide rose 35 ppm. It took just 29 years for the same amount of increase to take place.

That reminds me of the freshman year student that goes to the beach to measure the water level. 2 hours later he comes back screaming that we're going to be underwater in a couple of days, not knowing anything about the tides.

So you have samples for the last 300 years. How long has the earth been around?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

" 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."

Scientists have misused statistics to prove whatever point they had in mind to make before research. Happens all the time.

Re:Who to believe?

[jez9999]

Frankly I'm glad we're going to mars. If things keep up the way they have I'll open the first off world affiliate station of the Old Curmudgeon Network.

Will I be able to pick that up in McDonald's and Starbucks?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, whether you like it or not.

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?

[joehill48]

All kinds of accusations are flying around regarding whether the report is "politically biased." Did anybody read down to the end of the article in the NY Times? (I already know the answer to that question, of course; I merely ask it for rhetorical purposes.)

In the second-to-last paragraph, the findings within the report are supported by Dr. Sidney Drell, a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution. The Hoover Institution, for god's sake!

What does that tell us about the question of political bias in the report?

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

I think we have a bit of miscommunication here. I'll just state how I feel and maybe you will understand.

Of course, this by itself suggests nothing about the trustworthiness of the report. I can easily see how a group of politically motivated Nobel laureates could (perhaps even unconsciously) allow some bias to creep into this report. How tempting would it be to use a little of the personal prestige you've earned to have things your way? While this is a true statement, it seems to imply that my reaction is "just the reaction they wanted" and therefore it serves to slightly discredit the document (or should at least cause extreme skepticism). Maybe that's my fault.

Anyway, you're right regarding the difference of policy and science. I havent' read the paper yet. My assumption (yeah, yeah) was that this was a scientific paper more than it was a politically charged one.

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

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.

No. The word "evolution" merely means "change with time", which is an observational FACT, clear in stratigraphic records. "Evolution", or what some people call "that monkey-to-man thing", is a theory, in the same sense that Gravity is a theory. That is to say, a coherent mechinaism that explains the observed facts and makes testable predictions.

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

Actually, you're the one who's not a very good scientist. The fact that there IS a horizon proves that the Earth IS NOT flat! Think about it!

Re:Who to believe?

[JCMay]

Okay, "somebody took some core samples and here's what they found." Although there appears to be a temporal relationship to ice-trapped CO2 levels and a change in human history, there's not enough data in evidence to prove a causal relationship between them. That's the whole point of my first post- there are too many confounding influences and insufficient data to draw real conclusions.

Krakatoa happened in that time period. Other volcanoes were also active.

There are also other sources of CO2 as well.

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

People have lied before.

Perhaps this mean we should go through life believing nothing seeing that people have lied before.

Look, the point is that you have to look at things critically. This report is signed by "60 leading scientists--including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents". Verify each one if you want to. At some point you're going to have to decide for yourself what you want to believe.

I mean apply this same skepticism to Bush: ("Presidents have misused statistics to prove whatever point they had in mind.....")

Re:Who to believe?

[b-baggins]

OK. Read my post again. The Nobel Committee themselves publicly stated they gave the prize to Carter specifically to send a political message to Bush.

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a political action group. The scientists in this group are there because they share a political ideology. They are most certainly politically active.

Re:Who to believe?

[spacefiddle]

"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?"

ehhh.... and if it was one of the three other years that aren't tagged thusly, it would be divisive / disruptive to the war effort / counterproductive to this needed time of coming together / etc. ad nauseum.

It is "political" in the sense that it is talking about some politicians... how else may one address the actions of our elected officials? Inevitably, any criticism of our noble Caesar will be discounted as "merely political."

Honestly, ask yourself, what administration of any stripe has *ever* responded to criticism with "gee, you're right, we really oughtta stop doing that. Thank you for your concern and hard work! The democratic process is alive and well!"

Ha ha ha you wish.

Invariably the horde of spindoctors and PR cogs leap into inaction, attempting to cover the issue with a signal to noise ratio that glazes the eyes of the average American before they get to think about it too hard. Don't let Joe Wageslave hear about supressed reports and campaign contributions and policy decisions based on selective ignorance - instead fill his ears and the 6:00 news about how much the whole world picks on America and now those damned intellectuals are jumping on the bandwagon too. Nothing to see here, they just like to pick on our honorable President, the bastards.

And we're falling into it here, by allowing the debate to be about the *motivations of the scientists,* rather than *the issues they have raised!*

Why? Because arguing that America should drink more lead to prevent business interests from cutting into their executive billions would be patently ridiculous. The issues raised are not addressed, this way - they are (attempted to be) invalidated, by tarring it with "Oh yeah? Well you're a bunch of jerks with ulterior motives too, so there!" Don't argue you're not bad: shout that your opponents are just as bad as you are.

This has been the way of political success for some time, you'll notice. It feeds off our carefully cultivated inertia... talk to people at work, on the street, in crowds, whatever. Everyone thinks they're too damn tired and overworked and stupid to contain all these ideas in their brain, BUT, they're genuinely concerned and bothered by the idea that they're being misled or taken advantage above.

It's such a relief when the whole thing's cancelled out! Oh, they don't really care, this report is just political. Whew. Back to the status quo.

Stop falling for this crap!

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?

[CarnageAsada]

Currently the earth is in a warming trend that is 100% natural. This is a known fact yet gets very little coverage. Do you know anything about Geology? How about Earth science? How about the scientists at the University of Fairbanks that have been studying the Artic for well over 25 years, does anyone ever quote them? Do you recall a story that made national headlines a few years ago about a group of scientists that were up near the North Pole? They saw open water on the ice packs and the news media jumped all over it as proof of global warming. What the story did not tell you is that those "expert's" were not expert's at all in the science of Geology; most of them were biologists on a personal tour, not doing scientific research. Had any one bothered they would have found out that open water on the ice packs is normal, always has and always will be. How about all of the false reporting by many of the environmental groups in regards to the Tongass forest and how it has been clear cut and is in danger, pffft. I live in Alaska and was born up here. I can tell you that the Tongass is fine and if you have ever flown over it you would know this as well. Why are there more timber jobs in the state of NY than all of Alaska? How come NY State harvests more timber board ft each year than the entire state of Alaska? I don't hear any cries about saving the forests on the East coast. What about all of those pretty pictures of ANWAR you see posted all over the web? News flash, that is not ANWAR, that is the Brooks range and the many times I have flown into Deadhorse I never recall even being able to see the Brooks range from the coast at 30,000 ft. Bottom line is life is all about agendas, everyone has them and that is what drives people. I get tired of do gooders who dont have a clue telling me how things are up in Alaska.

Re:Who to believe?

[Jim Starx]

Who knew that leadership was "science,"

Who knew that scientific fact had anything to do with leadership.... oh wait.... it doesn't! What decision the government ultimately reaches is not under consideration here. Whats being discussed is the fact that the people making the decisions aren't being supplied with the information they need to be supplied with.

Someone in bush camp doesn't want x to happen even though there is scientific evidence that it would be helpful. There are several valid reasons for taking that stance, maybe its cost prohibitive. But instead of arguing that, they choose to take steps against that evidence even being included in the discussion.

The paper, as I understand it, made a point not to comment on the decisions made. They didn't talk about leading anyone, or spooks, or calculated risk, and they certainly didn't make themselves out to be kings.

Re:Who to believe?

[KarmaMB84]

I think Slashdot needs a +1 Naive modifier.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

What science are you in?

Physics is my primary field.

I came to realise that there are different kinds of science. Social scientists tend to find their own truths and fight over it. Truth in this sense is not absolute, it depends on the proponent.

Q.E.D. I'm afraid, with this caveat: I used the word truth in the colloquial sense, not the scientific sense. Thus when I said truth I meant something akin to fact. The syntax and grammer of English is not suitable for making the distinction casually unfortunately. You must choose between sounding like an verbose, overacademic pompous ass, or colloquial brevity and reasonable grammar. I try to steer a course down the middle. I often fail.

In the sense that the word "truth" might be used in a mathmatically technical sense the social sciences contain little to no truth at all, although they proudly stand on what they claim to be a mathmatically scientific foundation. That foundation is made up of mathmatical aether filled aerogel.

When you begin fighting over untestable, nonabsolute "truth," you are not discussing science at all. You are discussing religion.

Natural sciences, however, are much more focussed on the one truth which can be proved either by formal methods (which themselves are known to be correct) or by facts.

And there is even a name for this: Science.

If a nobel laureate (of the natural sciences) says that someone is twisting the truth, then it should make you think. If 20 nobel laureates do so, then even more.

Over the course of my liftime I have often been in the habit of hanging out with Nobel Laureates and nominees for periods of time, although far less so in my dottage than in my youth. Now I tend to hang out with their writings far more. I think that most of them would agree substantially with my post, and I think my post supports the point of view that the Bush administration is twisting the truth.

As did Clinton's, Big Bush's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's, Nixon's, LBJ's and Kennedy's.

Those are the ones with which I can claim some personal familitarty. I can rely on literature to assure me the practice is not entirely contemporary, but accelerting. Rapidly.

KFG

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?

[Anonymous Coward]

I've been curious when this accusation (Bush politisizing science) would make the mainstream press. The first time I recall the charge was sometime late in 2001 in _Science_ magazine (I don't have a reference available). I have seen some further rumblings in the scientific literature since then.

I wonder how much longer before this administration gives us a Reagonesque "catsup is a vegetable" regulation.

Re:Who to believe?

[MullerMn]

Is he reforming the band?

"We got a full tank of gas, half a pack of cigarettes, it's dark, and we're wearing sunglasses."

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

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?

For the love of whatever you call holy, go and learn some fscking thermodynamics and statistical mechanics.

Point being that you CAN predict ensemble behavior such as climate.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

The talk.origins folks are pushing an agenda. Try a more objective source and get back to us, okay?

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

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?

Why, the policymakers, of course! Silly question...

NEWSFLASH! This just in from the AP newswire: "20 Nobel laureate scientists win Democratic primaries in a thrilling come-from-nowhere victory!"

Re:Who to believe?

[snol]

the article says they'd been working on the report for a year or more.

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?

[cardshark2001]

Faulty logic if I ever heard it. The only fundamental fact in science is that everything should be questioned, that nothing is ever proven. For the record, I think the theory of evolution is the best one on the general subject that we currently have, but that's an aside. Another aside, I know someone else who says things like "If you disagree with me, you are wrong." Hint: he holds a job very high up in the current administration.

The epistemological argument that "nothing can ever be proven" is a useless statement. You don't get any mileage out of it when you are trying to build a nuclear reactor. It's kind of fun, in a way, to bandy about such meaningless bits of philosophy. But in the end they only serve to coddle this inclusive, relativistic culture we have created by making people think there is no such thing as fact or truth.

It's a fact that the earth goes around the sun. I can even prove it. To show that this is not a fact, you would have to resort to tedius, twisted philosophical arguments. To prove it, you just have to observe nature for a while.

It weren't no epistemologists what built the atom bomb. Do atom bombs exist? Well, let's just say that I don't want to be around one when it explodes to find out.

Re:Who to believe?

[snol]

Gee, I wonder if there's an incentive to keep the pork barrel full?

The report wasn't saying that the Bush administration doesn't fund scientists, but that it doesn't pay attention to their findings when it's politically inconvenient.

Re:Who to believe?

[butane_bob2003]

Any scientist worth his salt grinds his axes outside the laboratory. Calling the study 'biased' sounds like a relfexive reaction to me. A single scientist's leaning towards a conclusion without absolute proof could be attributed to bias, but when a group of scientist get together to lean in a certain direction, it's generally safe to say that they are on to something. Marburger should be less concerned that the study may be biased, and more concerned that it may hold a great deal of merit. Compare the records of the scientists to the Bush administration, I'd say the truth in these matters lies nearest to the scientists.

Re:Who to believe?

[binkless]

If these scientists are so interested in making honest apolitical statements, why would they do it through an organization like the Union of Concerned Scientists? This organization has a reputation for cherry picking quotes that favor its political agenda and representing the result as the consensus of science.

Re:Who to believe?

[pmfp]

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.

Yeah, sure. All praise Arafat and the Iranian Sharia law loving woman who have won peace prizes!

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

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.

So, if "science" and clear thinking is the kind of thing that disunites PhD's, would it be safe to say that politics and partisanship are the kind of thing that unite them?

Re:Who to believe?

[u-235-sentinel]

The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!"

---

Personally, I haven't believed in scientists since I learned the world really was round ;-)

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, like "President of the United States"

Re:Who to believe?

[love2hateMS]

I am perfectly well aware of how prestigious it is.

Nonetheless, brilliant people can have character flaws, personal agendas, and biases. Often they have more. Look at the incredible scientific dishonesty shown by Mann's famous global warming study. The man made up his data. I repeat, he made it up. (This is called lying by most people.)

Re:Who to believe?

[ponxx]

> 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.

Yup, it's a theory, just like the "theory of gravity" the "theory of elctromagnetism" and the "theory of thermodynamics" or the "theory of quantum mechanics". It's a theory and a well supported and understood one at that.

In contrast there is young earth creationsim, which is not a theory, but a fairy-tale. It makes no predictions, it has no explanatary power, nor evidence, and worst of all, it's not falsifiable!!!

I can't believe this debate still exists in the US...

Ponxx

Re:Who to believe?

[RickHunter]

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

Because on one side, there's 20 Nobel laureates from a number of disciplines and both sides of the political fence stepping up and saying "Using science in this way is wrong!". And on the other, there's a professional lying snake saying "those people are doodie-heads!"

Who do YOU think I'm going to believe?

Re:Who to believe?

[antiMStroll]

"The "Concerned" in UCS is a red-flag in any case.

So I get this straight, you'd only trust a "Union of Apathetic Scientists" who in spite of it still manage to bring force important issues into the public eye? Wouldn't that make them self-contradictory?

The alternative is scientists who happen to stumble apon the alledged distortions of the Bush administration, but I know that isn't what you mean since you obviously read the articles and know that's exactly what happened. The distortions were brought to the UCS by other scientists working in the fields affected.

So what did you mean?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually it serves leftist anti-capitalist ideology quite well.

How so? A factory could pollute the environment just as easily if it were owned by the workers instead of capitalists.

Re:Who to believe?

[Shuh]

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.

Now that the war in Iraq is over, I'm going to risk my reputation and my credibility by saying "America is going to win and Saddam will be found!"

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

I can at least put forward my observations:

. . .my usual Slashdot rant. . .

Even a scietist is allowed personal observation and opinion if he does not claim them to be otherwise. Even to the extent of giant farts of rhetoric.

If, however, you wish to read more you could start with my oft refered to "Too Much College," by Stephen Leacock, Professor of Economics at McGill University. The writings of John Holt can also be instructive. John spent 20 years trying to reform the lower educational systems and finally gave it up as hopeless, founding the modern, secular, homeschooling movement.

Googling on Randi, Michael Shermer, Martin Gardner, Fabian Pascal and Dijkstra should also turn up some relevant material, although I warn you that some of these are curmudgeons in good standing, and have been for quite some time.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Fair enough. My statement "nothing can ever be proven" was only intended as a counter to "this is proven, if you disagree with me you're wrong". The point was really meant to show that just because someone with an important-sounding title says "I've proven $statement is true," it doesn't mean you should blindly believe him/her without looking at the facts for yourself.

To take your example: "It's a fact that the earth goes around the sun. I can even prove it." Sure you can, but I would be a fool to run out in the street and yell it aloud without first checking your facts and observing nature myself for a while.

I guess I should have been more clear.

Re:Who to believe?

[Damek]

What, like the source mentioned on the linked page? It says: "See, for example, (Weinberg, J.R., V.R. Starczak, and D. Jorg, 1992, "Evidence for rapid speciation following a founder event in the laboratory." Evolution 46: 1214-1220)" After that, the page links to a FAQ with more such sources.

Why don't you just come out and say that you prefer to ignore sources with which you disagree?

Re:Who to believe?

[randomencounter]

And secondly, stating that anybody is "wrong" is closed-minded thinking. By definition, no good scientist will ever close their mind to an alternate point of view.

Wrong. No good scientist will close their mind to an alternate point of view that fits the available facts. I can come up with wonderful hypotheses that have no bearing on reality, and when I do, I am wrong too.

Re:Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

"...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.

Fair enough, seeing as at no point have I even suggested that scientists are "completely objective". I said they were more likely than anyone else to be able to present a rational, objective analysis of the situation. Clearly, you disagree.

So, as twenty Nobel laureates are so clearly incapable of critical, objective thought, who should we look to for rational analysis of the role of science in today's government?

I understand your skepticism, but honestly, your life will be largely fruitless if you refuse to place your trust in other people. There's no way any one of us is qualified to make more than a small fraction of the decisions one typically faces in the modern world--there's simply too much you'd need to learn to make your own rational decisions to the exclusion of the advice of others.

Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

The talk.origins folks are pushing an agenda. Try a more objective source and get back to us, okay?

The "agenda" they are pushing is the scientific agenda--drawing conclusions based on the data rather than your preconceived notions. But their "agenda" is not at issue, because I'm not asking you to take their word for it. The talk.origins folk have kindly provided an archive containing citations of the primary scientific literature, where you can look up the actual evidence.

Re:Who to believe?

[ksheff]

I thought they are supposed to be free to do research that challeges the accepted scientific view, not just goes along with it.

Politicians appointing committee members that share their views is as old as politics itself. Anyone who thinks that these scientists are free of political or ideology concerns is living in a dream world. Who you know is probably more important that what you know, because the former is how you get grants. All of it is very political.

Re:Who to believe?

[Jeremy Erwin]

The Nobel laureates who signed the statement were
Philip W. Anderson Physics, 1977
David Baltimore, 1975 Physiology or Medicine
Paul Berg, 1980, Chemistry
Jerome Friedman, 1990 Physics
Walter Kohn, 1998 Chemistry
Leon Lederman, 1988 Physics
Mario Molina, 1995 Chemistry
F. Sherwood Rowland, 1995 Chemistry
J. Robert Schrieffer, 1972, Physics
Richard Smalley, 1996 Chemistry
Harold E. Varmus, 1989, Physiology or Medicine
Steven Weinberg, 1979, Physics

Funny, I don't see Arafat on that list of signatories. I don't see Carter, either. It really shows how narrow minded these "scientists' are. Not a single literature or peace laureate was mentioned in the Union's press release.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

John Ashcroft is one of the Blues Brothers?!

Re:Who to believe?

[Rostin]

Well, now you've guilted me into apologizing, because I didn't read the article either. I base the assumption that the article is about policy on the example given in the /. summary: "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."

Re:Who to believe?

[ksheff]

Cheney's following the cancelled checks to the families of suicide bombers.

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

The best I could find on Google is that CO2 emissions from industrial processes account for about 30 million tons. This sounds reasonable to me, anyone have a better figure?

Uh, try 6-7 Billion tons of carbon released globally each year here and here .

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

For whatever it's worth, the kinetic theory of gasses was the first thing that as a young physics student I looked at and said,"Holy bejeezus! That's frickin' asthetically beautiful."

I'd never known before that what a mathmatician or physicist meant when they talked about a "beautiful" theory/proof.

What they mean is beautiful. Go figure.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Be careful here. Science is not set up to prove things. Science is only set to disprove things. Sure, you can make a conjecture and a prediction about how things will occur, but that is not science. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and never FALSIFIED. Just because it has never been falsified does not mean it WILL be.

It may seem like I'm picking nits, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding that almost everyone has about science. It does not PROVE things, it DISPROVES them. What you are left with in the end gives you a *reasonable* idea of how things are.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

I am routinely accused of being a philosopher. I deny it catagorically and don't think I could spout Kant if I wanted to. At least not without putting in few hours of reading as a refresher.

The accusations do not stop, however.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sort of, yeah. But phrased differently: the agenda they're pushing is the anti-religious agenda. Every sentence in their various documents is angled toward trying to discredit religious creation beliefs in favor of non-religious beliefs.

And as for their primary reference material... go read it sometime. The cited article, for example, points to only some very weak evidence in favor of one interpretation of the observations. There is no balance of opinions one way or the other.

Any balanced discussion on the subject of the origins of life has to start with this proposition: nobody knows what happened before humans began observing the world. Here are some observations about what we've seen, and some theories to explain how things became the way they are.

Taking the position that religion is wrong gets you nowhere fast.

Re:Who to believe?

[photonic]

... 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 suggest that you can, as a good scientist, provide us with a reference of that claim for peer review and for our reading pleasure?

Re:Who to believe?

[spiritu]

Moreso, in fact. Check out how wonderfully polluted the Soviet Bloc countries were compared to the US and Western Europe. Neither was unpolluted, but the Soviet Bloc ones were just loads and loads worse. It was amazing when the Berlin Wall came down, so I've heard. East Germany was just... dirty.

Re:Who to believe?

[Arakonfap]

I expect the scientists and the politicians to be completely biased and untrustworthy until proven otherwise.

Proven? By whom? You obviously won't take the proof of someone who proves it with science, since that would be a scientist. Maybe just looking for a result, so you yourself can see proof?

With as many lies as the administration as already demonstrated, I'm really surprised that the advisors are putting a "spin" on the science. Who would expect less of a politician? I am however pretty dissapointed with the response.

Seriously - if the chief science advisor was interested in HIS reputation, and that of his administration, wouldn't he refute these claims with something substancial? And, reading through it, the scientists are much more qualified to answer the questions posed.

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Thanks, these are very informative. I just used the first reputable-looking figure I found, which was from 1995 or so, and did a rough extrapolation to what emissions would be like now based on the growth rate documented. My original point still stands, though.

Re:Who to believe?

[kisak]

I thought they are supposed to be free to do research that challeges the accepted scientific view, not just goes along with it.

Most people who have gotten a Noble prize gets it because they have challenges, and more importantely, changed the accepted scientific view in their field.

Politicians appointing committee members that share their views is as old as politics itself.

That does not make it better. And it seems like the current adminstration is much more eager in this than has been seen for a long time in the USA.

Anyone who thinks that these scientists are free of political or ideology concerns is living in a dream world.

Ultimately, the judges of science is scientists themselves. Peer review is the key. Anyone who think that you can become a recognized scientist just through connections and not through hard work and hard won respect for your published work, must had little contact with the academia. The problem is that the current administration don't put recognized scientist on scientific panels and committees, but industrial lobbiest and people from outside the peer review system of science.

Re:Who to believe?

[spiritu]

You're right, it's not left-wing/right-wing. It's "does it matter that we're spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, or not?"

You seem to be taking the subject position that the question of whether or not it matters has already been answered. You also seem to be taking the subject position that there are things to be done that wouldn't bankrupt society.

I'm not sure you can take those positions without making a huge amount of assumptions that probably aren't provable.

Note that taking the "whether or not it matters question has already been answered" subject position is shaky either way you believe the question to have been answered. Can you really PROVE that melting the ice caps and increasing the temperature of the planet by 0.n degrees over the next 10 years is going to matter? Can you prove it won't?

Here's the biggest question: in an economic analysis of the effects of the Kyoto Treaty (and similar "environmental" efforts), why does the U.S. get raped economically, while no other countries do (certainly not to the degree the U.S. does)? Is this politically motivated by envious nations wishing to bring the U.S. down to their level? Is Kyoto really about the environment, or about hurting the U.S.? Does it matter if the U.S. is hurt? Why, or why not?

Those are some real questions.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

No, I do not. I've never seen the point.

Believe it or not, given the empirical evidence, I really don't have a lot to say. I have opinion, and enjoy a certain amount of writing, but I'm not a proselytizer, per se.

Others are speakers and promoters. I'm just a noodge and have no particular problem with being treated as such. I can be very responsive, but I just don't have that urge to step forward.

So basically you'll find me here playing Falstaff.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[Kelson]

otherwise why would people even LISTEN to the political pronouncements of hollywood stars?

Or, for that matter, country singers?

Personally, I found it ridiculous to watch right-wing country singers denouncing left-wing actors for expounding on politics.

Just because someone disagrees with you does not make them less qualified, and vice versa.

Re:Who to believe?

[g00bd0g]

You should follow your own advice and " do some research of your own" You will find that these scientist are 100% correct and not "somewhere in the middle"

Re:Who to believe?

[addaon]

You yourself quoted the original sentence properly before:

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

The original poster was not claiming that there was partisan motivation, and is therefore under no obligation to prove something that he did not assert. He claimed that the response stated that there was partisan motivation. This is true, as can be verified by, um... reading the response?

Re:Who to believe?

[jonniesmokes]

(arg!)Styopa wrote:
> Some of the most blindingly leftist people I know are otherwise quite bright...

You said it. Perhaps there's a connection you have overlooked. Maybe 'leftists' realize that for humanity to move forward we're all going to have to work together. The 'everyman for himself' point of view will commit humanity to the destiny of the dinosaurs.

I've seen science being made and its like sausages. I wish in some ways I didn't know. That said - I still eat sausages. Science is imperfect. Its made terrible mistakes. But atleast there's progress. Ignoring scienctific evidence or distorting it is extremely costly.

Like article says: "Its like changing the weather forcast to say that the hurricane isn't coming. The hurricane is still coming but it doesn't let anyone prepare for it and a lot more people will die."

Just like weather forcasting - scientific evidence isn't perfect and one can distort the evidence and lie to the public. But the public will eventually pay a huge cost.

I'm amazed at the number of posts on Slashdot that argue against evolution. I guess our society is going into the dark ages faster than I thought. Maybe we'll start burning witches and running things on astrology. And all businesses can start using Enron style book keeping.

"In God we trust" - that could be a problem.

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

You missed the point. The point I was that Carter is a political figure. The people who signed onto this reports are not all political figures. They are scientists, medical experts, university chairs, etc.

Second, because you seemed so bent on that point I did a bit of googling (sorry, dont' have all day to research the facts of your statements) and from a CNN Article (10/11/2002) I found this:

Asked if the selection of the former president was a criticism of Bush, Gunnar Berge, head of the Nobel committee, said: "With the position Carter has taken on this, it can and must also be seen as criticism of the line the current U.S. administration has taken on Iraq."

Now, if you read that carefully, it doesn't say that they awarded him the award to send a politcal message. They said "it can and must ALSO be seen as a criticism". That means that this award ALSO sends that message; it doesn't say that's why the award was granted to Carter.

If you have a quote that proves me wrong please feel free to show me.

While they may have a politically ideology that they share, it doesn't necessarily discredit the facts. That's up to you.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

As opposed to the groups who:

(1) Get political funding from Big Environmentalists

(2) Are uncomfortable with the logical consequences of not taking actions, even those actions who's consequences have not been thoroughly considered. Since they don't want to think of themselves as anti-enviroment, they'd rather overreact to any unproven scientific conjecture. It is easier to just force utilities to install a million dollar soot scrubber on a generator and raise everyone's electric bills, than to admit that there's no difference in people's health with a few parts per million difference in air quality.

There is evidence that there is short-term localized warming in certain areas of the planet. What we have not proven is that there is long-term future global warming, and we do NOT have the evidence of what exactly is causing the localized warming. We have theories that it is only human produced, yet we do not have any data to disprove the dozen other theories that imply that human impact is minimal when compared to other natural planetarial and solar cycles.

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

-1 Trust No One. (X-Files)

Re:Who to believe?

[2marcus]

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

Yes. Humans release 6-7 Gt of Carbon (that's gigatons) (and that means almost 30 gigatons/petagrams of CO2) every year.

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

What number do you want? The _NET_ ecosystem uptake of carbon is about 1 gigaton per year. The _NET_ ocean uptake of carbon is about 2 gigatons per year. 6 GtC - 1 - 2 = 3 GtC per year. The _increase_ in CO2 concentrations is therefore about 3 GtC per year, or about 1.4 ppm per year.

Other numbers: "Net primary productivity" (which doesn't include decomposition) is about 60 Gt per year. "Gross primary productivity" (which is respiration in of plants, but not respiration out) is on the order of several hundred GtC per year. But if you think about it, what goes in must come out, almost exactly. The difference is due to things like: disequilibrium (because of human emissions, more CO2 will go into the ocean from the atmosphere than vice versa), and changing conditions (higher CO2 concentrations means slightly more plant growth than usual, and it takes a few decades for decay to catch up, changing human land use).

If you want to see nice experiments, look at the Keeling carbon dioxide graph. You can see the seasonality of CO2 levels as the northern hemisphere "breathes in" in spring, and "breathes out" in fall. You can see the human effect: the curve overlaying that. (You can also measure historical CO2 levels in ice cores: 200 to 280 ppm for 400,000 years. 280 ppm to 370 ppm in the last 150 years.
http://www.2think.org/keeling_curve.shtml

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

So, my person opinion is that anyone who questions the FACT that increased CO2 in the atmosphere is due to human emissions is an ignorant troll (sort of like people who question evolution). People who question whether or not human emissions _can_ cause I consider to be wrong. People who question whether human-induced warming in the future will be disastrous I consider almost reasonable... (my personal belief is that there will almost certainly be measurable human induced warming, and that there is a significant likelihood that the warming will be deleterious to humans - not end of the world, but not real happy, either).

-Marcus

Re:Who to believe?

[10am-bedtime]

this means:

the politicians have won!

that is, they have succeeded in dragging everyone down to their level. let us all muck about in our own spit, what a wonderful world.

Re:Who to believe?

[PantsWearer]

Yes, Shockley is a counterexample. Now get 19 more of them to agree to the same thing. This was not just a single Nobel winner, this was 20.

I don't know if you've ever been in an a discussion with 20 scientists, but generally they can't even agree on the time of day, much less something of this scope.

Re:Who to believe?

[UdoKeir]

Actually it's called Darwin's Theory of Evolution. Other scientists have since formulated their own theories on the mechanism that drives the FACT of evolution.

Re:Who to believe?

[F34nor]

...activated. ...scanning for mathmatical formulas in language.

Target aquired. Powering Lasers. Kill, Kill, Kill.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

No. To tell you the truth I wouldn't even know how other than by brute force method. You'll just have to wait for it to come around on the guitar again, at which point, feel free to join in the chorus.

Watch for key phrases like:

"Large corporations are not an innate part of capitalism"

"The Constitution is a liberal document"

"The modern left is not liberal, it's fascist"

"I am a conservative. That's why I'm a liberal"

"The corporate system is essentially fuedal. If you have a "good job" you are in service, which is antithetical to the American Dream."

Stuff like that usually stirs things up a bit.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

Yes, but at what point is everybody wrong and you're right. This isnt' just one Nobel Laureate but 20.

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

A couple things to remember, though:

0) Remember there is a difference between CO2 mass and carbon. The 6 Gtons is carbon. Much of the mass in your calculation (which is too high by a factor of 10 btw - consult e.g. a diving handbook) is in oxygen.

1) There is a difference between the GROSS carbon production by the biosphere, and the NET production. In general the biosphere "produces" something like 100 Gton carbon a year, BUT it also absorbs that same amount in growing things. The carbon emissions from fossil fuels is IN ADDITION to the normal processes; it has the effect of disturbing the equilibrium, because it doesn't get absorbed. You have to understand that if the full 100 Gton/yr of carbon went into the atmosphere and wasn't absorbed, the Earth would look like Venus very quickly.

Current, undisputed, data show that atmospheric CO2 levels have doubled in the past 100 years . Isotopic analysis of the C (i.e. C-12 vs C-14 levels) show that virtually all of this carbon comes from fossil fuels (the C-14 has decayed, so the carbon has been buried for a LONG time).

Re:Who to believe?

[rw2]

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.

I've done this and found the truth does not lay somwewhere in the middle this time. The scientists are correct and should be taken seriously.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

"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."

Really? And just how much are 10 lives worth to you? Hope one of those 10 arent you or someone you love.

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

Yeah, I guess that's a political statement. I think I'm somewhat numbed to the issue since I've read about the Bush administration doing this on many other issues (replacing panel members when disagreement is voiced).

Re:Who to believe?

[JimJinkins]

Twenty self-selected scientists who have political axes to grind have spoken. All the rest of the Nobel laureates have not been heard of at this point.

Of course the Union of Concerned Scientists may be an apolitical orginazation.

Re:Who to believe?

[Ryan Amos]

Nope, he's moved on to bigger and better things.

Re:Who to believe?

[Martin Blank]

I think the point was that "Union of Concerned Scientists" suggests that they see something wrong and want to point it out, instead of, say, a "Union of Professional Scientists" which might be more inclined to review things for sake of review without seeing anything right or wrong.

Re:Who to believe?

[sg3000]

> you often find that people with more education or experience > have more of an axe to grind.

They also stereotype more often, too!

People with more education or experience are annoying because they know too much about these topics! The problem is so much in life can be solved with ignorance. The key is to compromise with people who have no experience or education, and stake a position based on political or personal ideology instead. The trick is to learn to trust the demagogues, instead of some egg-head knowledgeable person. Why not throw out years of research or insight in favor of a well-crafted bumper sticker? The "creation scientists" have been doing it for years, and it's worked for them!

Re:Who to believe?

[|/|/|||]

The fact that Bush is overspending may be an obvious fact, but that is NOT the issue here.

Leadership is NOT science, but in this case our leadership is abusing science in order to screw citizens for the benefit of corporations and for the benefit of the administration itself.

You can't make political decisions based on science alone, but an understanding of the world does come in very handy in making political decisions. When the government tries to distort our view of the world, who better to call them on it than scientists? And who better to run the bastards out of office than us - the free thinking citizens of our great nation?

Re:Who to believe?

[caseydk]

At no point did I dispute claim that humans released additional CO2 into the atmosphere. Even a single human would produce *some* additional CO2 than no humans.

I simply requested numbers to compare the two.

Thank you for some actual numbers.

Re:Who to believe?

[rw2]

Look at all sides of the issue, and come up with your own informed opinion. It makes you look smarter that way.

Yes. Let's do that.

A human produces about 2.5lbs of CO2 a day.

The global production of CO2 per day supporting humans (think gas, power, industry...) is 75lbs per day. And that's averaged over all people. The U.S. average is probably more like 150-200lbs per day.

So, look at both sides indeed. Humans are a drop in the bucket compared to what they produce by non-metobalic mechanisms.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Mudd Guy wrote:

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

The question for me is, what is "good" information?

Lead and arsenic in the water? No question, it needs to come out. Snowmobiles in Yellowstone? Forget it, I think that's absolutely horrible and disruptive for the wildlife. Drilling in the ANWR? Dead set against it. These are irrefutable.

However, what concerns me about the polar cap scientists (and hence, some of the global warming theoreists) is that they are violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Their very presence within the arctic areas may be melting the ice caps. They have set up small villages with heating, electricity, running water, and septic systems. They get to and from their study sites using large cargo planes and small turboprops, gas powered skis, and gas powered motorboats.

Think of how fragile and unstable a snow pack is, and how much energy is released in the form of an avalance at the slightest sound. Now think of all of the vibrations in the air from running motors and cargo planes landing on the ice, and people trekking over the snow plains. Who knows what cascading effect such energy waves have on large and fragile underground caves, and whether these are triggering energy releases that degrade the ice caps by casuing collapses, which in turn cause ice to melt and slide?

Science questions aside, does Bush need to go? Replacing him with a trial lawyer (Edwards) or a Vietnam-war-opponent (Kerry) is not what we need right now. Indeed, the removal of Bush might only encourage the pseudo-Muslim extremists into increasing the frequency of their suicide attacks. Remember when the space shuttle Columbia exploded over Texas? Pseudo-Islamic mullahs proclaimed it as an omen against the U.S. for the upcoming Iraq war. If Bush lost his office can you imagine the jubilation of these guys in their pseudo-Islamic mosques? Recruitment of suicide bombers would sky-rocket.

Consider this:

1) Osama Bin Laden supposedly wanted to get American troops out of Saudi Arabia because they were on sacred land. American troops were there only because they needed to enforce the No-Fly restrictions of the Gulf War as long as Saddam Hussein (and his descendants) were in power. With the recent war in Iraq, this threat was removed, and American troops are now no longer in Saudi Arabia. OK, Bin Laden (if you are still alive), you got what you want, so what is your excuse for the continued Al Qaeda-sponsored suicide attacks?

2) Supposedly, Bin Laden didn't like Saddam Hussein's secular life style. OK, so shouldn't Bin Laden be happy that Saddam Hussein is no longer in power?

As a final point, I don't buy the so-called populist message all of these candidates. They are all millionaires (Edwards lives in a 30-room mansion, Kerry lives in a 20-room mansion). Voting a trial lawyer into the presidency is only going to increase the prestige of that the lawsuit industry; think abount Darl McBride and SCO's unfounded lawsuits, and the amount of headaches it has caused for Linus Torvalds. Yech.

And Kerry's message seems to be "I don't like war." Well, that's ethical, but it's not practical right now for the reasons I outlined above. The current situation in Iraq is very different from the situation in Viet Nam, and with different dynamics. Consider that peace keeping forces from Poland and Japan (!) are over in Iraq, and you'll immediately see the difference.

Re:Who to believe?

[caseydk]

mod parent up.

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?

[beakburke]

Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...

It's not that it is a group of 20 respected scientists that throws up a flag, it's the fact that the UCS really a body consisting of politically likeminded scientists. If it was 20 randomly drawn scientists, commenting on strictly the science of the work, that would be different. Also, people at that level have an insane focus on their specialty. Thus they understand their profession well, but they tend to think everyone should have the same priorities as they do. (Like climatology, or atomic research, or etc etc.) This makes them lousy decision makers in terms of making policy.

This actually reminded me of a kook on the radio last night talking about how the moon landing never happened. I didn't believe him, but I thought it was possible to hold that view, even if I find such a suggestion highly unlikely. What made him an absolute nutjob was his statement that his libel suit AGAINST an astronaut who called him crazy was thrown out because "the judge was paid off". That proved to me, beyond doubt, that he was simply a pathological conspiracy theorist. Not someone who just happens to have a different convictions about one or two things. He really was in need of a serious medical evaluation.

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

Correction, levels haven't doubled. They've gone from 260 ppm to 360 ppm. The doubling is expected sometime this coming Century. The rest of the point still stands, however.

My bad..

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

did you even read the parent post?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Jesus, does anyone have any concept of how american democracy was built to operate, or do they not teach this at your "progressive" social studies classes anymore? I don't know how this stuff gets modded Insightful, but then I realize that there is a STRONG course of liberalist shills running through SlashDot lately... not to mention the editors jumping on any "news" that would paint the current administration in a bad light.

(1) There is a separation of powers between the Executive branch and the Congress. It is not within Congress's right to demand memos from any senior administration office; congress and its offices rarely have the priviledge to know non-security related internal memos, and doing so is without any historical precedent. Furthermore, there is no evidence of any wrongdoing even within the meetings, they are simply fishing for names.

And it doesn't matter, because Congress decided to sit on the energy bill after all. No energy enhancements have been passed in the nation in 3 years.

(2) Budgets are defined by Congress, so they knew ahead of time how much money they had alotted for the war. To think they didn't is ludicrous, unless you are willing to believe they don't read the papers given to them, in which case you'd believe the congress-persons are both ignorant and apathetic. Evidence points at the latter.

(3) The true cost of the medicare bill was forecasted by many, and hidden by its proponents (read: Kennedy) thinking the seniors could get something for nothing. Bush was a fool for signing it, thinking he could convert middle-of-the-road thinkers to conservatism by enacting liberal bills.

(4) The recent news story on jobs to be created in the upcoming year is based on a moderate national growth of 3%. Perhaps you don't understand that jobs are being created all the time, just as jobs are being lost all the time. The national media likes to report only on the gross jobs lost, and this report grossed the jobs to be gained. As a net, we're gaining jobs.

(5) We've already linked Saddam to terrorism many times over; for you to be ignorant of his historical actions paints a poor picture of your knowledge. From him gassing his citizens, to wholesale murder of dissidents, to invading his neighbors, this dictator's done it all, all under the apathetic eye of the UN. "Stop, or I shall have to say Stop again!"

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

Be careful here. Science is not set up to prove things. Science is only set to disprove things. Sure, you can make a conjecture and a prediction about how things will occur, but that is not science. A theory is a hypothesis that has been tested and never FALSIFIED. Just because it has never been falsified does not mean it WILL be. It may seem like I'm picking nits, but this is a fundamental misunderstanding that almost everyone has about science. It does not PROVE things, it DISPROVES them. What you are left with in the end gives you a *reasonable* idea of how things are.

You're lecturing me on epistemology, certainly one of the building blocks of science. Unfortunately, and I say this with all due respect, you are wrong.

There are theories in science, which are usually built to describe a mechanism to explain observable *facts*. The earth revolves around the sun. This is a fact.

The *theory* of gravitation describes the scientific mechanism behind the *fact* of the earth revolving around the sun.

You say I have a fundamental misunderstanding, but it is you who are conflating two ideas which are often misunderstood: theories and facts!

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

where is Cheney getting his info from?

Oh, he has some super secret intelligence...that he can't reveal because of National Security. Sure, some green, pinko international commies might want "smoking guns", but you aren't a communist are you? After all, you are a patriotic American and you wouldn't want the smoking gun to be a nuclear explosion. And you don't hate small babies do you? Well, unless you hate small babies, Saddam is a terrorist.

Re:Who to believe?

[2marcus]

Sorry. I apologize if I answered perhaps more vehemently than was required. I saw your post more as a "I don't believe humans put out enough to matter" comment than a "I don't know how much humans put out, can someone enlighten me?" comment.

Those of us in the "rational climate scientist" camp (yes, we're biased, but we _try_ to be as unbiased as possible, unlike either the doomsdayers or the industry apologists) get frustrated by the fact that the people with the bullhorns (ie, people with money and access to the administration) keep burying good science and trumpeting bad science - all the while attacking environmental legislation with the mantra "no legislation without good science", when what they really mean is "let's postpone legislation which might hurt the oil industry as long as humanly possible, regardless of how much data is out there, because all you have to do is _claim_ something is in dispute and people will believe it, at least at little." Cf. evolution, WMDs, missile defense, etc..

Therefore, we spend a lot of time addressing known problems, rather than having a good discussion about a topic that is inherently complex and political...

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Hmm, let's see...

I had 20 grams of CO2 per minute (I messed up the mass of CO2, see below). 20*60*24 = 28,800 grams of CO2 per human per day, or 63.4931315 pounds (I love the Google unit converter) per human per day. I did get the mass of CO2 too high, as someone already pointed out (IANAC - I Am Not A Chemist), so that probably accounts for the difference. Where did you find the figure of 2.5lbs per day? I'd like to see that.

The global production of CO2 per day supporting humans (think gas, power, industry...) is 75lbs per day.

Someone came up with 6-7 billion tons per year total emission, with sources, higher than my initial figure. Did you mean 75lbs per human per day? 75*365*6,000,000,000/2000 = 82,125,000,000 tons per year, higher yet again. Do you have a source for this figure?

The rest is just simple math, which I can't find more than one side of :).

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

They can't predict the temperature to within one degree on any given day in the future. People try to predict the average temperature over a given time in the future. Even so, the predictions are usually garbage.

Re:Who to believe?

[DunbarTheInept]

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.

Yeah, the same reason everything else in science is called a theory. The theory is not about what has occured, but about a possible explanation as to why.

Re:Who to believe?

[rw2]

Where did you find the figure of 2.5lbs per day? I'd like to see that.

According to google the standard figure is 2.2lbs and I rounded up.

Did you mean 75lbs per human per day?

Yes. But it was extrapolated from other numbers.

Your 7B number is better. I found the same as real numbers instead of extrapolations when I looked. So globally we're at about five pounds per day of production, plus 2.2 pounds from breathing.

However, for the U.S. the average is 20 tons per capita per year, or a bit over a hundred pounds per capita per day.

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Very informative. You can see clearly a correlation between CO2 concentration and:

1. Increased industrialization.
2. Population growth (due to advances in medicine and overall raised standard of living largely because of 1.)

There is certainly a preponderance of evidence correlating CO2 concentration and global warming trends, and (to try and stay on topic myself) I think the Bush administration does the public a disservice by trying to pretend that global warming doesn't exist (I don't know conclusively that it does, but I think more study is warranted). I was just trying to point out that industry emissions aren't necessarily the only significant source of CO2.

Judging by some other comments in the thread, there seems to be some disagreement on how much each source of CO2 actually contributes, though. I'm inclined to be most interested in RayBender's figures on industrial emissions, because he (she? Well, one has to be right ;)) had sources which didn't immediately seem disreputable.

Re:Who to believe?

[14erCleaner]

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

Well, for starters, conservatives tend to think that we aren't fucking up the environment, merely using natural resources for the good of humanity.

There are honest differences of opinion as to the importance of preserving nature as-is versus just keeping those parts of it that we can use. Also, the assertion that we're "ruining" or "destroying" the planet are also inherently colored by your ideology. I'm sure Bush doesn't think we'll "ruin" the Arctic by drilling for oil; on the contrary, we're getting some value out of a desolate wasteland, thereby improving it.

Re:Who to believe?

[jonpublic]

Just to point out, its not just 20 PHD's, its "Washington, D.C.--Today, more than 60 leading scientists--including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, zombies, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents.... And theo rganization includes over 100,000 scientists, minions and killer robots according to the website.

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

Sort of, yeah. But phrased differently: the agenda they're pushing is the anti-religious agenda.

There is nothing "anti-religious" about evolution; most of the major Christian denominations have no problem with it. It only troubles some fringe sects with a rather narrow literalist interpretation of the Bible.

And as for their primary reference material... go read it sometime. The cited article, for example, points to only some very weak evidence in favor of one interpretation of the observations.

As a biologist, I have done so, and a lot more besides. I find the evidence for evolution overwhelming, roughly on a level with the evidence for the existence of gravity. Of course, in a certain sense, all generalizations can be regarded as theories. What we have are a huge number of observations of things falling, and we theorize that there is a general tendency for things to fall. Carried to extremes, we don't actually know anything but our personal experience, so the notion that our perceptions reflect anything about exterior reality is a kind of theory. In practice, however, our confidence in some things, like the existence of the external world, gravity, or evolution is so strong that we refer to them as "facts."

Any balanced discussion on the subject of the origins of life has to start with this proposition: nobody knows what happened before humans began observing the world. Here are some observations about what we've seen, and some theories to explain how things became the way they are.

Science doesn't presume to know exactly what happened. It works by figuring out what didn't happen. So nobody claims to know every detail about how life evolved. Some things we do know is that it did not appear all at once, and that life forms present at later times differed radically from those that were present at earlier times.

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?

[jnicholson]

I don't know about you, but I'd rather have smart people in charge.

Provided, of course, that they are smart enough to realise that the rights of less intelligent people are also important.

Re:Who to believe?

[jcoleman]

The average layperson WILL know this report exists, and even possibly understand it, if you help them to. Part of being a good citizen is to help educate the other citizens. So grab all your friends and point them to this document. I do this all the time...I get labelled as a rabblerouser and my Republican friends all laugh at me, but at least they are aware of such documents.

Re:Who to believe?

[rizzo420]

his historical actions were generally against his own nation, not linking him to any international terrorist organizations, such as al quaeda. this is what the bush administration said was true and now they have backed off that assertion. there is no known link between saddam and bin laden or any other major terrorist, and we have yet to find any. why saddam was this "major threat" to the united states that we felt it necessary to just go on as freedom fighters for the rest of the world while our own nation suffers from economic hardships (and don't give me that bullshit about the economy being great because the stock market is doing well... if unemployment is higher than it has been in many many years, there is an economic problem regardless of the stupid stock market).

Re:Who to believe?

[stmfreak]

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.

Wait, I've heard this argument before, but back in my day it was black holes do not exist... or was it the speed of sound is impossible to exceed! Yes, that was it... then of course there were all the nobel-equivalent scientists proving that the Earth was flat. And today we have the speed of light as a proven speed limit and global warming as a proven effect of cow farts.

Sorry, I've seen the best liberal science that the National Geographic Society has to offer: Not only can they not get their math correct, but they cannot conclusively form the argument that humans are causing the warming. Yea, we give off CO2, yea the oceans and trees absorb it. Uh, but not all of it, in fact, not half. But the amount we find in the atmosphere doesn't rise anywhere near the expected missing-half amount... so while we cannot form a theory, science has proven that humans are responsible for this warming?

Sorry, I don't buy it. Not only because we've had non-industrial warming in the past, but because life is so adaptable to exploiting sudden increases in the level of resources.

Give it a few decades and we'll all be proven wrong.

Oh and regarding a bunch of scientists NOT being politically motivated? Puh-leeeeze, they aren't exactly self-employed you know. Everything is political.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

We've already linked Saddam to terrorism many times over; for you to be ignorant of his historical actions paints a poor picture of your knowledge. From him gassing his citizens, to wholesale murder of dissidents, to invading his neighbors, this dictator's done it all, all under the apathetic eye of the UN. "Stop, or I shall have to say Stop again!"

terrorism
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

How do any of the things you mention there fall under that category? Yes, Saddam is a very very bad man. But he has no credible ties to any currently active terrorist organisation that I've seen yet (maybe you can point them out). And don't give me that "oh, he traded with someone who also traded with al qaeda" BS. Six degrees of separation make us all terrorists if you start thinking that way.

How is this relevant? If you were to take out everyone as evil as saddam, you'd have to go well past what the US is capable of launching militarily. The world is just not a nice place. It might have been justified to take down Saddam, but it was selective. There are most likely better ways to spend money than on the iraqi war.

Might I also remind you who it was that sold those chemical and biological agents to Saddam in the first place, well past the point when it became obvious saddam was all about evil? Oh, what a coincidence, the same countries who knew that saddam had weapons. Well, ofcourse they did, they should know what they sold.

Re:Who to believe?

[jsebrech]

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.

I think that you're confusing evolution, the observable fact, with natural selection, the underlying theory.

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?

[jsebrech]

It's called the theory of evolution because it's the theory of how evolution occurs, not the theory of whether evolution occurs.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

There is nothing "anti-religious" about evolution

Right. But the agenda pushed by the talk.origins crowd is distinctly anti-religious.

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

Strictly speaking there are no facts. Just observations. The earth orbits the sun, we know this because we have observed it happening. But our observations are not fact. We have not observed the earth orbiting the sun for ever. Therefore we can only assume that it will. We can build theories, such as that of gravity, to model our set of observations. But they are based on the assumption that our set of observations is comprehensive and indicative of all behaviour that the sun and earth can undergo.

matfud

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

However, what concerns me about the polar cap scientists (and hence, some of the global warming theoreists) is that they are violating the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle. Their very presence within the arctic areas may be melting the ice caps. They have set up small villages with heating, electricity, running water, and septic systems. They get to and from their study sites using large cargo planes and small turboprops, gas powered skis, and gas powered motorboats.

And that influence is negligable in comparison to the biomass on the poles. The effect we're seeing wrt weather is not a result of some scientists forgetting to turn off the heater. Spring is happening where I live, and we're only halfway february. The amount of temperature records, distorted weather patterns and generally weird stuff happening with the climate is disturbing. We have a clear history of rising temperatures matching the increase in greenhouse gases.

Replacing him with a trial lawyer (Edwards) or a Vietnam-war-opponent (Kerry) is not what we need right now. Indeed, the removal of Bush might only encourage the pseudo-Muslim extremists into increasing the frequency of their suicide attacks.

I agree, lawyers should be chained together on the bottom of the ocean. But I don't see how being a trial lawyer affects someone in their ability to be a good president. Also, do you think the vietnam war was a good thing? Your comments sure do suggest it.

As far as the suicide attacks are concerned. What ever will they do, increase their attacks to amount 2 in the US in the last decade instead of just one? 9/11 was a freak occurance, that was perfectly predictable given the foreign policy of the US over the last few decades. Yes, it will happen again. No, the current administration's policies aren't doing anything to make it not happen again.

As a final point, I don't buy the so-called populist message all of these candidates. They are all millionaires (Edwards lives in a 30-room mansion, Kerry lives in a 20-room mansion).

20 rooms is a big house, not a mansion. But regardless, is your memory so short you forget bush himself was elected on a populist platform? And let's face it, he is most definitely not middle class in any way. I don't think wealth is someone you can hold against a presidential candidate. Their viewpoints should speak, and Bush holds and has held a number of viewpoints which are in direct opposition of available facts. Mind you, I don't the the democratic candidates are any better. I guess it's a sad reflection on politics in america that the candidates for the most important job in the country are such a bunch of whiny losers.

Re:Who to believe?

[Facetious]

Well, I for one would encourage you to at least throw a few thoughts into your currently empty slashdot journal. I am particularly interested in what you've said regarding wealth, value, jobs, and the like. I agree with the grandparent. What you have to say generally makes a lot of sense and is well reasoned. You are part of the signal in the slashdot noise.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rotten168]

From my understanding, evolution in higher organisms takes thousands of years. So unless you can actually observe a species evolving over thousands of years, it remains a theory.

Incidentally I agree with evolution. But unless you are actually there to witness an event (like the first fish climbing onto land), I would maintain that it has to remain a theory, no matter how well you can support it with evidence and logic.

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

the agenda pushed by the talk.origins crowd is distinctly anti-religious.

Not that I've noticed. Like most biologists, they are hostile to Creationists, whom they perceive--correctly, I believe--as being engaged in an intentionally deceptive campaign to force science teachers to lie to children about the scientific status of evolution.

Re:Who to believe?

[2marcus]

More data on CO2 emissions:
http://www.ipcc.ch/pub/spm22-01.pdf
I PCC* states: 3/4 of anthro. emissions is fossil fuels: the remainder is deforestation/land use change.

US EPA inventory of greenhouse gases breaks down 1997 US fossil fuels into:
31% transport, 37% power plants, 21% industrial, 11% other.

The US produces about 1.8 GtC out of a worldwide 8 GtC (this is higher than RayBender's number because I am including deforestation emissions: fossil fuel only would look more like 1.5 GtC out of 6.4 GtC). http://web.mit.edu/globalchange/www/MITJPSPGC_Rpt7 9.pdf

-Marcus

*The IPCC report actually does a reasonable job of collating the work out there. I personally disagree with the section of their work based on the "SRES" scenarios, and others disagree with how they boil down the work they've collated into their "summaries for policymakers", but on a whole, they actually do a good job.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

I would just like to point out that one of the signers of the bill is David Baltimore, president of the California Institute of Technology. As a student who goes to Caltech, I must say that he has on more than one occasion demonstrated anti-conservative tendencies, including inviting Al Franken to discuss why Republicans always lie and a graduation speaker who denounced religion as something that "poisons" the mind. It appears to me that Baltimore and virtually all university chairs that signed this agreement are very bitter about the education cut-backs (less money for them).

Re:Who to believe?

[mozumder]

Actually, politicking occurs in any group of 2 or more individuals- Congress, a dysfunctional family, a McDonalds restaurant, a study group at the library, and so on..

It's something you'll end up learning in high-power salesmanship courses- the ability to identify and play the politics of any organization to advance yourself.

-bobby

Re:Who to believe?

[Moofie]

A good scientist appreciates the limitations of the models he has built about the way the world works. A good scientist pursues truth, and does not hew to a hypothesis that is not borne out by data. A good scientist changes his outlook and worldview as more data are collected.

There are very, very, very few good scientists. There are a LOT of parochial, closed-minded, scientists that are totally ignorant about anything outside their very narrow focus.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Evolution is a theory. That's all. Teaching it as if it were a fact of nature would be wrong. Wrong in the sense that it's incorrect, but also wrong in the sense that teaching something that's incorrect is morally wrong.

Creation beliefs deserve respect, like any other theories. They deserve equal time, or at least acknowledgment.

Re:Who to believe?

[Hentai]

Not true. If you're standing on a perfectly flat plane, the horizon will be a precise 180 degree division. Think about it - do a quick ray-trace diagram, see at which angles lines intersect the 'ground'.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

We have not observed the earth orbiting the sun for ever. Therefore we can only assume that it will. We can build theories, such as that of gravity, to model our set of observations. But they are based on the assumption that our set of observations is comprehensive and indicative of all behaviour that the sun and earth can undergo.

It is an observed FACT that the earth orbits the sun. Where in my post did I say that it was a fact that it has always done so?

The rest of your post is restating what I already said: The theory of gravity attempts to explain the observed facts. Call them "observed phenomenon", if you like. The definition of phenomenon is (dictionary.com):

1. An occurrence, circumstance, or fact that is perceptible by the senses.

Note that the word fact is used, right there in the first definition.

This idea that there are no scientific facts is a cancer. A lot of people believe it, it just so happens that many of them are not scientists. I'm not saying the philosophy of science is worthless, clearly we got the scientific method of empirical research from that branch of thinking. The ironic thing is that you are spouting epistemological *theory* to support your case that there are no scientific *facts*. Not that I agree for a moment that you have succesfully done so, nor will I agree with your misguided interpretation of epistemology.

You are making the all too common mistake of conflating observations and mechanisms (the "all science is just a theory" belief). The observation that the earth orbits the sun is inarguable. The theory of gravity is up for grabs.

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

Evolution is a theory. That's all. Teaching it as if it were a fact of nature would be wrong.

What religious zealots have difficulty understanding is that science does not claim to be privy to any kind of knowledge of absolute truths. "Facts," as the religious zealot imagines them, do not even exist in science. There are just observations and theories.

In science, "theory" is just another word for "generalization". For example, if I drop a pencil and it falls to the floor, that is an observation. If I generalize to say "Everything falls when dropped," that is a theory. A "fact of nature" is just a theory with an overwhelming number of observations to support. Examples would include gravitation, the earth's orbit around the sun, and--yes--evolution.

Creation beliefs deserve respect, like any other theories. They deserve equal time, or at least acknowledgment.

The notion that "all theories deserve equal time" is hostile to the very nature of science, and reflects a fundamental ignorance of science. To teach such a doctrine to children is to be profoundly dishonest about the very nature of science. The nonscientist might imagine there are only a few theories in competition, but this is false. For any given set of observations, there is a literally infinite number of possible theories to explain them. If we gave them all equal time, we would never get anywhere. So science prioritizes: theories with strong evidence and a strong history of predicting correct evidence get priority over theories with less evidence or less predictive power. And simple theories get priority over theories that have more complexity than required to explain the known data. This rule of prioritization is absolutely fundamental to science--abandon it, and you are no longer doing science.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

More to the point, nothing can ever be proven . If I see a ball fall to the ground, I can't prove that it is under the influence of gravity - I can't even prove that the ball exists.

I have to point out that you did not make up this argument. You are referencing epistemological *theory*, which is rather ironic I think, given the circumstances.

I also must point out that not everyone agrees that it is impossible to prove that the ball exists, or that that is an especially valid question to ask in the first place. If I don't exist, what's the point of trying to define gravity anyway?

Real science takes observable *facts* and explains them with *theories*. Yes, there are such things as facts, and nearly all scientists agree with me. Personally, though I find it very fascinating, I don't count epistemology as a science, and a lot of other scientists feel the same way.

If you believe gravity is not a fact, I invite you to levitate.

The *fact* is, organisms change over time. We've observed it in nature and in the geological/archaeological record. The *theory* of evolution *explains* the observed *facts*. Period.

Re:Who to believe?

[RayBender]

I'm inclined to be most interested in RayBender's figures on industrial emissions, because he (she? Well, one has to be right ;))

It, actually. I'm a highly advanced piece of code running on some big iron that would make you pee your pants.

(actually, I'm a fruit of an illicit union bewteen M-X zippy and M-x pinhead).

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

In science, "theory" is just another word for "generalization".

No. "Theory" is another word for "hypothesis." You're confusing inductive and deductive reasoning.

The theory of evolution states that new species evolve from old species. That's a theory that seeks to explain why life appears to be diversified when it supposedly arose from a single source.

The notion that "all theories deserve equal time" is hostile to the very nature of science

Nobody said that all theories deserve equal time. I said that creation beliefs deserve equal time, because they're just as valid as evolution.

Equal theories deserve equal time.

Incidentally: science is not a religion. Please stop acting as if it were. You speak as if you're delivering tenets handed down from on high. That's bullshit.

Re:Who to believe?

[HalfFlat]

Perhaps the fact that so many scientists appear to be left-leaning in the political spectrum might indicate that the conservative stance is unreasonable?

It's like when governments complain about their coverage in the media. The media may have an anti-government stance. Or they might simply just be correct.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

I've got 5 megs of perfectly empty Time-Warner web space too. I've looked at it a couple of times and couldn't figure out what to do with it.

You'll find much of what I have to say already emedded in Thoreau's "Life Without Principle," which is already available on the web, and Thoreau's language is exquisite.

I suppose what I do best is translate much the same ideas into the modern context and colloquialisms, which has value of its own. In my recent readings I've come across some items that have prodded me a bit to consider the issue.

In "Innocent's Abroad" Twain has some pointed things to say about the value of a journal, even one kept by a complete amateur. Roger Ebert related a story about before he was a reviewer and complained to his editor that he was tired of writing the same editorial column over, and over, and over. His editor responded, "That's because they don't get it yet. You have to keep writing it until they do."

I note that most of Shakespeare's plays are written that way. First tell them what you're going to say, then tell them, then tell them what you've said.

In reading Chesterton's autobiography (also someone who expresses ideas somewhat similar to my own when the subject isn't religion) he notes that he once wrote an editorial column called "The Defense," then berated himself for the youthful ignorance of the title, because he was not accused.

It gave me the idea for a website devoted to being an "Advocate for the Defense," devoted to reasoned arguments in support of unpopular ideas that are either under direct assualt somewhere, perhaps in law, or perhaps only stand accused in the thoughtless manner of society, condemned without even consideration. It would be liberal in the classical sense of the Age of Enlightenment, apolitical, the idea being the important thing. Which means, of course, that modern "liberals" would consider it right wing and modern "conservatives" would consider it left wing.

The problem with an independent liberal point of view is that both sides, and the middle, all join hands to throw rocks at you.

And I'm perfectly happy just tending to my tomato plants and being left in peace.

It's a somewhat dangerous idea with no immediately discernable "reader demographic," while requiring full time attention to do even vaguely well. The research load alone is a daunting thought, as I would not be content with the sort of throwaway rant typical on the web these days, and even in my own posts.

And yet the very fact that it's a somewhat dangerous idea is an argument in favor of its value from my point of view.

I'll have to give it a little think.

In the meantime I'll also give some thought as to what I might put into a journal. The typical blog "My cat honked up a hairball today" has no interest to me.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[mesocyclone]

There are plenty of non-left leaning scientists. Nice theory, though. It's right up there with the one going around schools of Philosophy that the reason there aren't many conservatives in the Liberal Arts is that a conservatives are dumb.

Naturally, the left leaning scientists join the left leaning organizations. Duh.

Re:Who to believe?

[thomastheo1]

well, the foreign newspapers should be a clue. News items like this one are very popular with the foreign press. (Along with the pubescent fuss about janet jackson's boob), these stories are making our culture and our administration look foolish, strenghtening the distrust that the false WMD claim seeded.

Re:Who to believe?

[LetterRip]

It is foolish to base belief on arguements from authority if their is adequate information to evaluate the merits of the claim.

They've provided their report here

Report

instead of speculating, why not read the report?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

It's right up there with the one going around schools of Philosophy that the reason there aren't many conservatives in the Liberal Arts is that a conservatives are dumb.

I agree that this theory lacks credence. Being soft hearted liberals they refuse to believe that conservatives are instead simply selfish and mean.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Perhaps its because the US, with around 5% of the worlds population produces 25% of its emissions.

Source: EPA. Scroll to the bottom for a pie chart...

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?

[tgibbs]

No. "Theory" is another word for "hypothesis." You're confusing inductive and deductive reasoning.

Hypothesis means "an especially tentative theory." Theories are derived from inductive reasoning--they are generalizations that tie together individual observations. All scientific generalizations are theories, some more detailed than others. Once a theory is constructed, deductive reasoning is used to derive predictions that are used to test the theory. For example, if your theory is "objects fall when dropped," you could then try to test the theory by dropping different types of objects that have not previously been observed to fall.

I said that creation beliefs deserve equal time, because they're just as valid as evolution.

A theory is an intellectual tool for doing science, and its validity resides in its usefulness--its ability to make predictions that lead to experiments that result in discoveries about the world. To teach creationism on an equal footing with evolutionism in a science class would be like teaching accounting students that the abacus is just as important as the computer in modern accounting. It would simply be a lie, because the reality is that all modern biology is based on evolutionary theory, and every major discovery in biology for decades has been made by scientists who used evolutionary theory as a tool for discovery. Creationism's place in modern biology is about on a par with the flat earth's place in geography. That is the fact, and to teach anything else is to be dishonest.

Incidentally: science is not a religion. Please stop acting as if it were. You speak as if you're delivering tenets handed down from on high.

No, science is not a religion, because scientists to not claim to have any special access to Truth. Science is more of a craft, with methods that have been refined empirically and handed down, not from on high, but from mentor to student, by generations of scientists, until today it has become a finely honed tool for discovery.

Re:Who to believe?

[BoneFlower]

Also, it may not work the way most people think if it is as bad as it looks. The best available information shows that there was a period of global warming BEFORE the ice age. Apparently something about that allowing more precipitation up north and down south rather than it all staying frozen up and the glaciers then being pushed south and north. So we may not be turning the planet into a desert, but a sheet of ice.

Re:Who to believe?

[Doomdark]

With its liberal bias, the group could be composed entirely of Democrats.

Care to point examples of "liberal bias"? That someone thinks creationism is utter rubbish (being not backed by a single scientifically sound argument)? That vast majority of studies consider global warming to be a potentially serious problem? That current understanding of toxicity of lead levels should be used on defining legal limits for lead levels in various substances? That current policies regarding sexuality (preaching abstinence as the main solution to teen-age pregnany and other rubbish) are idiotic?

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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?

Care to elaborate? Something like what, exactly? One or two quotes, please?

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

I am a scientist and I would prefer it if people used the term observed phenomenon rather then fact.

Here is a definition of phenomenon from a different dictionary to the one you chose (cambridge) does not mention the word fact at all.

Definition
phenomenon (EXISTING THING) [Show phonetics]
noun [C] plural phenomena
something that exists and can be seen, felt, tasted, etc., especially something which is unusual or interesting:

Actually I don't have a problem with the word fact, I have a problem with its common usage which often makes it mean "somthing which is inarguable, absolutely known, beyond all doubt etc.". It does have this kind of conatation when most poeple use it which is why I prefer to use the term observation or even observed phenomenon.

>This idea that there are no scientific facts is a cancer.
Its not a cancer, it is fundamental to the scientific process that nothing is accepted as an absolute truth. The data obtained from observing the path of the earth wrt the sun is pretty solid but only because of many many observations by many people over a large period of time which has all produced data that largly seems to agree. Note that I am not talking about the theorys as to why the earth orbits the sun they can never be known because, as I said in my earlier post, we do not have enough observations of the behaviour to be able to model it (you would need observations from all periods in time). Gravity could (unlikely I admitt) be a transitory effect which we just happen to be able to observe now.

If you take the definition of "fact" (as some dictionarys do) that a fact is:
"something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information"

Then we would probably be in total agreement.

Re:Who to believe?

[Zak3056]

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

Whoever moderated the above as "insightful" is a moron. The grandparent closes with the words, "I don't trust the Bush administration, either. I expect the scientists and the politicians to be completely biased and untrustworthy until proven otherwise." In other words, DON'T TAKE ANYBODY'S WORD AS TRUSTWORTHY UNLESS YOU HAVE A REAL REASON.

"We're just in it for the noble pursuit of science" rings just as hollow as "We're from the government, and we're here to help."

Re:Who to believe?

[Zak3056]

The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad.

"Just scientists" don't organize to engage in "public advocacy, and educational activities focus[ing] on global environmental problems, climate change, energy policy and technology, transportation reform, sustainable agriculture and biotechnology, arms control, and nuclear power safety."

It's a fucking POLITICAL group of scientists. As the grandparent said, that doesn't necessarily make their claims incorrect, but to deny that they are politically motiviated WHEN THEY THEMSELVES claim to just plain pathetic.

The UCS site is currently slashdotted. The quote above is from http://www.eere.energy.gov/bro/neen/resources/ucs. html

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Really? Was Carl Sagan shunned? He was an outspoken proponent of the very discredited nuclear winter theory. It was all driven by his politics and it had no basis in science.

Re:Who to believe?

[Cyberherbalist]

"...have you bothered to read the report before saying that they are biased and untrustworthy?"

Of course I didn't read the report. Did you, before you claimed they were totally unbiased and trustworthy? It's clear you didn't read what I wrote, since I didn't say they were biased and untrustworthy. Good grief, I said I distrust them from principle. They may be wrong, they may be right, but I don't say, like some here have, "Goodness golly, they're NOBEL-LAUREATES fer cryin' out loud, they must be trusted!"

Who here has read the entire blinking report? If a Nobel-laureate wrote a report it took him or her a year to prepare, are you saying you could read the whole thing and understand all the arguments so that you could say those arguments all held water? If you did, then by Golly where's YOUR Nobel prize? I sure don't have one.

"if you are expressing your opinion, why don;t you let them express theirs?"

Did I say they're not allowed to express their opinions, junior? Hmmm, checking a little closer I see that I didn't. I said I don't trust them implicitly. What's your point? They're allowed to publish whatever they want and I'm not permitted to doubt any of it?

"they aren't asking you to join them, they simply stated why they are concerned with this administration. read the damned report."

I like how that works: since I am perceived not to be fawning over the noble Nobel laureates and swooning at their great wisdom, therefore I must be trying to stifle the poor dears.

Re:Who to believe?

[bytepuncher]

Presenting selective evidence is no better than being selective with the experts chosen. It is estimated by some scientists that specialize in astrophysics and geology that the Earth was 6-7 degrees F. warmer during the years 800-1300 AD than it is today. In contrast, the Earth has warmed only 1 degree F. over the last century. The scientists used multiple sources for their data; whereas, the original global warming presentation to congress was highly selective with its data about the earliest years.

Conclusion: before rushing to judgement on their data, make sure that it stands up to thorough scientific review and not just political correctness review.

For more information, read here and here.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Science is more of a craft, with methods that have been refined empirically and handed down, not from on high, but from mentor to student, by generations of scientists, until today it has become a finely honed tool for discovery.

Yeah. Just like the priesthood.

Fuckin elitists.

Re:Who to believe?

[CaptainAvatar]

WTF has (eg) US environmental policy got to do with the war? And you know, maybe Nobel laureates are just smart enough to figure out that they have more chance of influencing political debate if they release this report before the election, not after. Is that a crime?

If you don't deny the "facts", then what's your problem? They're still facts and they still have to be faced, regardless of the timing.

Re:Who to believe?

[janeil]

While it is reasonable to think "that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle," therein lies the danger of bad science. If enough bad science is pushed on the public, reasonable people who of course can't do their own actual research on global warming, for example, can be induced to believe that the truth must be "somewhere in the middle." That's the way propaganda works.

Re:Who to believe?

[tgibbs]

Yeah. Just like the priesthood.

The difference between a priesthood and a craft is that the practitioners of a craft actually produce something that can be objectively verified. The product of science is knowledge about the world that can be used to develop tangible technologies; indeed, the products of scientific investigation and discovery have transformed our culture.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Their very presence within the arctic areas may be melting the ice caps. They have set up small villages with heating, electricity, running water, and septic systems. They get to and from their study sites using large cargo planes and small turboprops, gas powered skis, and gas powered motorboats.

Have you ever calculated how much energy the sun shines down on the earth? At sea level, the sun produces about 1,000 Watts per square meter. Antarctica is 14 million square kilometers (14 x 10^12 square meters). Being at the south pole, the power is reduced to 40% of what it would be at the equator. If you calculate that all out, it comes to 5.6 trillion kilowatts (5.6 million gigawatts). That's like having 5 million nuclear power plants constantly heating the place up. So the heat from all that equipment isn't likely to effect the weather.

Normally, all of that solar heat radiates back into space, but if greenhouse gasses even keep a small percent of that heat in the atmosephere, the result would be a large increase in temperatures.

While your concerns about vibrations may have some merit inasmuch as it may effect ice breaking up (although I seriously doubt it does), your concerns have no merit when it comes to measuring changes in temperature.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Frankly I'm glad we're going to mars.

Let me clue you in on something: we're not going to Mars!

Bush hasn't allocated even a fraction of the resources necessary to do it. His goal to reach the moon is even less ambitious than Kenedy's--and we already have the technology! The Mars announcement was just to excite the public and keep them distracted while Bush rearranges NASA's budget to fit a more militaristic goal.

In case you've been asleep for the past three years, Bush's support for any noble cause is the kiss of death for that cause.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

This is a POLITICAL GROUP of people who use their 'scientific credentials' to make their POLITICAL case.

Well, I have a PhD and I say they are spewing nonsense.

You can quote me on that!

Anon Coward, PhD

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

If you take the definition of "fact" (as some dictionarys do) that a fact is: "something which is known to have happened or to exist, especially something for which proof exists, or about which there is information" Then we would probably be in total agreement.

Actually, I like the definition you got out of the dictionary much better:

something that exists and can be seen, felt, tasted, etc., especially something which is unusual or interesting:

Something that can be observed with the senses is a pretty good definition of a phenomenon. It's also a reasonable definition of a fact.

I understand that science is sometimes wrong and that even that sometimes whole shifts in thinking occur. I also realize that psuedo-scientists use this fact to claim that everything in science is uncertain. This is patently untrue. Some things ARE certain. Some things are facts, and it is on these facts that theories are based.

The fact that some things which were perceived as facts in the past are now known to be untrue does not in any way prove that all facts are uncertain. There is a name for this logical fallacy in latin - Non Sequitur.

The facts are the ones that we can see, feel, touch, hear, taste, or smell.

You can make convoluted philosophical arguments that the nature of reality is illusory. You can argue about how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. I just don't see any reason to believe the former or care about the latter. I can see that the earth goes around the sun, even from the vantage point of earth. You can tell me that I can't prove that I can see that. I say you're misguided.

That sort of thinking never could have built the computer, or the jet airplane. It's mental masturbation.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

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

The policies this report address involve the Bush administrations policies in analyzing scientific research. There is likely no one better to address these issues than those who make spend their lives doing it (and doing it so well they managed to expand on the research with nobel-prize winning discoveries).

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

With its liberal bias, the group could be composed entirely of Democrats.

Are you suggesting that Republicans are not smart enough to have ever won the National Medal of Science or the Nobel Prize? Why don't you get them to release their views?

RTFA. There are many Republicans among the signataries who were senior directors/advisors under Nixon/Reagan/Papa Bush.

Re:Who to believe?

[polanyi]

You know, I read "PHD" as "pointy haired doctorates."

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Like it or not, the Bush Administration is responsible for those agencies and is therefore the most legitimate target for their complaints.

Re:Who to believe?

[Cederic]

>> 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

Which post? You can't make a claim like that and not link to the specific post, so that we can all have a laugh.

~Cederic

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Why not just create a simple page with the text of your favorite posts here? Maybe even use the Slashdot journal system for that... You could fine tune the posts a bit to drive the point home if you wanted.

You don't need to try much harder than you do here, as your posts are quite effective at making an impact.

At least to me... I'll run off now and continue my lurking.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Budgets are defined by Congress, so they knew ahead of time how much money they had alotted for the war.

Oh yes, but then, each time Bush administration "forgets" ("underestimates") the cost of war, and then begs for more money in the name of US Security.

The national media likes to report only on the gross jobs lost, and this report grossed the jobs to be gained. As a net, we're gaining jobs.

It's not enough to create jobs. You need to create them faster than the active population grows. Given the amount of deficit (5%), giving away money for free (for useless jobs), would have "created" noticeably more jobs.

We've already linked Saddam to terrorism many times over; for you to be ignorant of his historical actions paints a poor picture of your knowledge. From him gassing his citizens, to wholesale murder of dissidents, to invading his neighbors

This is bull. What you describe is not terrorism. Besides, when a dictator gets the power thanks to Talibans, and then, lets nuclear secrets be sold to Iran AND Libya, Libya being a proven terrorist state, what happens? He gets huge foreign aid from US, "because he is on US side". I'm talking about Pakistan. Talk about outrageous display of stupidity. Your non-existants WMDs and links to terrorism make me laugh in comparison.

Re:Who to believe?

[Anonymous Coward]

Earth was 6-7 degrees F. warmer during the years 800-1300 AD than it is today. In contrast, the Earth has warmed only 1 degree F. over the last century

Which made this warming the faster ever.

The articles you are quoting just prove how completly stupid are the arguments of the naysayers: they acknowledge: "His chart showed the global temperature bumping along steadily since 1000 - and then shooting up in the 20th century like the handle of a hockey stick", and their counter-argument: "One degree? We're spending $2 billion a year and drawing hockey sticks for 1 degree?", and "f global warming is real, then why am I so cold? I live just outside New York. It's 19 degrees Fahrenheit this morning - again. That's 5 degrees below the normal minimum for this date."

The only attempt at an evidence was: ""One of the most important pillars of the claim that CO2 is producing global warming," he says, "is the thermometer readings taken over the last 150 years. They show warming from 1900 to the 1940s. But the amount of CO2 produced then was negligible compared to the next period--from the 1940s to the 1970s--when there was cooling. So how can the CO2 be producing the warming? That is the contradiction. They have yet to show why this would be."

This is supposed to come from experts. Now apparently these "experts" don't even know the basics of CO2 cycle, because they completly miss the basic fact that CO2 stay in the atmosphere for about 1 century. Well they don't know shit about climate modeling anyway, they are astrophysicians, no surprise. You can as well ask a libertarian proctologist about climate.

Re:Who to believe?

[caseydk]

To recap those who are just joining us:

The Macro-Evolutionary model (the transition from one species into another) is a THEORY which fits the observed phenomenon.

Like other models/theories in the past, it may be proven incorrect (see Copernicus' model of the Solar System) or more phenomenon may be discovered to support the theory. Unfortunately, since it occurs over such long periods of time or due to cataclysmic events, it is hard to make predictions and test it directly.

Therefore, Macro-Evolution is in itself *NOT* a "fact". It is a model/theory which fits a set if facts/phenomenon.

This was what I was trying to point out in the first place.

Re:Who to believe?

[Black Parrot]

> Whether you want to call it a "fact" or a "theory backed up by emperical observation" is up to you.

Actually, for clarity of thought we need to keep those ideas distinct. A fact is something we know about the universe; a theory is a model that explains why that fact is the way it is.

Examples:

• Gravitational attraction is a fact. Relativity and Loop Quantum Gravity are theories that attempt to explain it. (The latter theory still embryonic, as I understand things, but no matter for present purposes.)
  
• That the makeup of the earth's "biosphere" has changed radically over the past few billion years is a fact. The Neo-Darwinian Synthesis it a theory that attempts to explain it.
  

Re: Who to believe?

[Black Parrot]

> What really irritates my about this post is how bloody confident the poster is that his parent was wrong. How can a person be so sure and so clueless at the same time?

Simple cause and effect: the cluelessness causes the false certainty.

Jokes aside, a study came out a year or two ago showing that the less competent you are, the less likely you were to be aware of your shortcomings. (It may have been discussed on Slashdot.)

Re:Who to believe?

[tc]

"Big Environmentalists"? WTF? Does Greenpeace have a $100Bn market cap I wasn't aware of?

Re:Who to believe?

[tc]

We have plenty of evidence that very strongly suggests that global warming is the result of human activity, and that it's not a good thing.

Of course, we can never prove this unless we were to run back in time and repeat the whole thing again with tighter environmental controls for comparison. Which is to say that we can never actually prove for 100% certain what is going on - a fact repeatedly seized on by the Big Oil folks.

However, I would point out that this Earth is the only one we have. We do not have the luxury of waiting to see if we really are fucking things up. By the time we wait for 100% proof to be available, it will be too late to do anything about it. That's why we have to start acting now, based on the significant balance of evidence already available to us - and hope that we're not too late.

Re:Who to believe?

[tc]

If you think the Kyoto Treaty will have adverse economic effects, just wait until you see the adverse economic impact of global climate change...

The point is that, absent government intervention, markets are very bad at factoring in long range issues. Even if it would be economically in society's best long run interests to take action on the environment, because the costs incurred down the road are so massive, investors are generally unable to take a long-term enough view. If you can make 10% more profit for the next 20 years, at the sacrifice of the whole company in 80, then many investors choose to take that trade (after all, they'll be dead in 80 years).

The way to make the market work is to apply economic pressure for those long term effects. You 'bring forward' those costs from the future to allow the market to properly act on them today. One way of doing this is with, for example, emissions taxes.

I should also point out that they work, and without crippling the economy. Look that the leap in the average fuel efficiency of American cars during the 70s as a result of the oil crises. That was economic pressure being applied in the form of taxes and higher oil prices, which led to car manufacturers drastically improving the fuel efficiencies of their products. Did that crush the American economy? Apparently not.

Re:Who to believe?

[Stephan Schulz]

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature.

Someone else said this better than I can a few months ago, but I can't find it, so I'll do my best to replicate it. (Remember, this is an estimation at best, but it should illustrate the point I am trying to make).

Nothing wrong with estimates, but you should always cross-check if the result actually makes sense. You only demonstrate the dangers of bad science education, coupled with an unreasonable belief in numbers.

The best I could find on Google is that CO2 emissions from industrial processes account for about 30 million tons. This sounds reasonable to me, anyone have a better figure?

30 million tons for what? That sounds like a reasonable number for daily worldwide production and a particular definition of industrial processes. To get a better estimate for carbon dioxide priduction from fossil sources, I checked the worldwide production numbers for coal and crude oil. World production for coal is about 5 billion tons, about 80% of which is anthracite (hard coal). The rest is lower-grade coal. Anthracite typically is 90%+ Carbon, the lower grades on average about 50-60%. That gives us a little bit more that 4 billion tons of Carbon from coal. With Carbon's atomic weigh of 12 and Oxygen at 16, that gives us 15 billion tons of CO2 from burning coal alone.

Crude oil production is approximately 30 billion barrels per year, or another 4 billion tons. Crude oil is a mixture of various Carbohydrates, but usually has about 2 Hydrogen Atoms per Carbon Atom (+ various other substances in negligible quantity). So let's call it another 3.5 billion tons of carbon, corresponding to 13 billion tons of CO2. So CO2 production from fossil fuel use is about 28 billion tons per year, or 1000 times your number.

Cross-check: There are about 200 million cars in the US alone. If each of those burns 10kg (about 3-4 gallons) of fuel per month, that's nearly 20 million tons of Carbon (70 million tons of CO2) right there.

Now on to the dangerous humans.

Humans exhale CO2 as part of the normal breathing process. Let's assume for the sake of this simplified example that an average human breathes 20 times a minute. If I remember correctly, average exhalation volume of air is 2.5 liters or so, of which 20% or so is CO2 (If any of my figures are inaccurate, please correct them).

You are wildly inaccurate here. Roughly 80% of air is nitrogen, and essentially inert. 20% is Oxygen. Of that Oxygen, about another 20% is converted into CO2. You are off by a factor of 5 in the rest:

Therefore, there is about half a liter of CO2 in one exhalation, which would be about a gram (this is a roundoff to make my next calculations easier). This results in 20 grams of CO2 produced by one adult human in a minute. There are 60*24*365.25, or 525960 minutes in a year, which means one human exhales 10,519,200 grams, or 10,519.2 kilograms, of CO2 in a year.

Only about 4% of the exhaled air is CO2, or 100 ml per breath. Now, one Mol (44g) of CO2 occupies about 22 l, so 100 ml weights 0.2 grams, giving us (using your numbers) 4 g of CO2 per minute or 2103 840 kg of CO2 per person per year. Using the corrected number, we arrive at 2103840 grams or about 2 tons of CO2. Now 2 tons of CO2 corresponds to 550 kg of Carbon per person. That carbon has to come from our food, so your numbers presume that everybody consumes about 1.5 kg of Carbon per day and converts it with 100% efficency. Those numbers are much to high - humans consume about one pound of dry matter per day (most of which is eventually Carbon). So either the breating frequency or the breathing volume are to high - I suspect both. Let's continue with a more reasonable (still high) one ton of CO2 per person per year.

Assuming a world population of six billion humans (don't point out that I'm discounting other species, I know and I

Re:Who to believe?

[ajs]

"Like it or not, the Bush Administration is responsible for those agencies and is therefore the most legitimate target for their complaints."

And complaints against an administration are inherently political.

Had this been an objective analysis of the trends in accuracty across several government bodies, it could have been apolitical, but as it is, it's an assessment of the administration.

Again, that's not to say it's a BAD report or that it should not have been aimed at Bush, but the fact that it IS that sort of report means that you should be looking at it very closely for bias. What's more it cannot possibly be comprehensive since the scope is so astoundingly large. That means there was a process of selection as to which facts to present... was it random? Based on likely impact? Based on level of innacuracy (that would be damning)?

If you apply the same selection criteria to other administrations, how would they fare? Why is that? Did the scope change? Are the agencies being more or less open about those facts now?

This is not cut-and-dry as both the publishers of the report and the administration would like you to think.

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Wow, I've never gotten this many replies from a /. thread.

Just a few comments:

You only demonstrate the dangers of bad science education, coupled with an unreasonable belief in numbers.

I'll be the first to admit that most of my scientific education sucks. I'm not sure what you mean by an unreasonable belief in numbers. I know my output numbers are only as good as my input numbers, but that's why I asked for people to confirm my input numbers, which several people did.

30 million tons for what? That sounds like a reasonable number for daily worldwide production and a particular definition of industrial processes.

My original source was inaccurate, but RayBender corrected me here and provided some better sources. Essentially, we produce 6-7 billion tons of CO2 a year by doing other things than breathing.

Using again the corrected numbers, we arrive at 6 billion tons (6x10^9) for CO2 produced by human breathing. So you underestimated CO2 production from fossil sources by a factor of 1000 and overestimated breathing CO2 production by a factor of 10.

Someone else (probably RayBender again, he's pretty smart) pointed out that I messed up the weight of the CO2 by a factor of 10, so humans do produce about 7 x 10^9 tons of CO2 in a year, about the same as is produced by industrial processes. You seem to be overestimating the amount of CO2 produced by fossil sources, although I would be interested to see your sources.

Yes, I see it, but you don't. Those numbers don't matter at all because the CO2 produced by breathing is part of a CO2 cycle. That is, all Carbon in our breath comes from food (in the end, from plants), who extracted it from the air while growing. As long as we don't start eating synthetic food, our net CO2 production from breathing is exactly zero.

Now this is one of the more interesting points in this part of the thread so far. As world population grows with advances in industry, there are advances in agriculture and more plants grown to feed everyone, which offsets the increased CO2 from more humans exhaling. Of course, there are some practical problems with this:

1. Most people don't confine their diet to plants. Domesticated food animals are going to be bred in greater numbers as well, which also produce CO2 in breathing. Of course, these animals have to eat too, and so more plants have to be grown to feed them.
2. Plants use oxygen and produce CO2 as well. They do this less than they metabolize CO2 and produce oxygen though.
3. All those hydrocarbons we burn to dump CO2 into the atmosphere were plants once too, so your industrial CO2 emissions were extracted from the air once too.

There are probably more things to take into consideration, but your point may still stand.

Just remember, this only works when there is a healthy balance between CO2 producers and CO2 metabolizers. Before the Industrial Revolution the world population was a lot smaller (see here). Population in the year 1800 was about 1,000,000,000 people. Even accounting for agriculture, I don't think there are six times as many plants in the world as there were 200 years ago (remember, we usually kill inedible plants to make room to grow edible ones), so the balance may be disrupted (and industrial emissions probably aren't helping). I don't think reducing industrial emissions will make the difference some people think it will, though. I think the human population is a factor in all of this too.

Re:Who to believe?

[Skweetis]

Sorry to reply again, I forgot to touch on this one:

Only about 4% of the exhaled air is CO2, or 100 ml per breath.

Where did you get this figure from? I got my 20% CO2 figure from an old college biology text hanging around. Your breakdown seems plausible, too, though. It doesn't make sense that all oxygen would be metabolized in an average breath, if there's enough there for you to hold your breath for a few minutes before it's gone, it shouldn't be all metabolized when you breathe every three seconds or so (if that's actually the average rate, I got that one from the same book :) ).

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

Hey this is science. Probability is the name of the game. Unless you can show 100% likelyhood of somthing happening then then it is not "certain".

Now the question becomes how confident are you that an event will happen. Earth orbit the sun 99.9999999% confidence. The position of an orbiting electron 0.00000000001% confident.

The boundary between fact and theory is often blurred because a theory that has been around for a long time without showing flaws is often treated as an absolute. In effect an incontrovertable fact. It is not and will never be
incontrovertable.

Re:Who to believe?

[DeltaSigma]

" The political maneuvering that happens at academic institutions is far more vicious than most anything that happens in Washington."

Now I don't mean to offend, but, isn't it possible you merely think this because you have more experience in academics?

I mean, from my own perspective, I would rate the politics at my place of business as worse than politicians politics. However, stepping outside my personal experience, I tend to think Washington would really be worse.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

Now the question becomes how confident are you that an event will happen. Earth orbit the sun 99.9999999% confidence. The position of an orbiting electron 0.00000000001% confident.

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

Now, to prove that it will always orbit the sun, you move into the territory of theory. But it is a fact that it's happening right now, and you need to acknowledge that.

If you argue that maybe the sun isn't really there, or that what we see with our own eyes may not really be there, you are arguing about the philosophy of science, or epistemology (the theory of knowledge), and many epistemologists would not agree with you either.

Real scientists, who actually perform science and invent amazing things like computers and nuclear reactors would agree that some things are facts, and that other things are theories based on our observations of the facts.

The boundary between fact and theory is often blurred because a theory that has been around for a long time without showing flaws is often treated as an absolute. In effect an incontrovertable fact. It is not and will never be incontrovertable.

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.
2. Sometimes long held theories are disproven
3. There are no facts whatsoever.

Three does not follow from one and two. It's a non-sequitur. Furthermore, you're starting to commit another logical fallacy - argumentum ad nauseum. Just because you repeat it over and over again does not make it true. Before you say I'm also repeating myself, you are the one who is asserting a position - that nothing can be known with certainty. You have to prove that with some kind of logic, not just by repeating yourself and resorting to non-sequiturs.

Re:Who to believe?

[CaptainCarrot]

It's a well-known truism in some circles, so take that for what it's worth... :)

There's a possibly apocryphal story about a Congressman who retired from Congress and retreated to a professorship at a small university, thinking it would be a calming haven. A year later he had left the university and was preparing to run for office again -- the politics in the university were too nasty for him to deal with.

Re:Who to believe?

[MrResistor]

That current policies regarding sexuality (preaching abstinence as the main solution to teen-age pregnany and other rubbish) are idiotic?

Well, this last one is biased, at least as you've worded it. (I agree with you though, FWIW, but you asked...)

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

Re:Who to believe?

[Stephan Schulz]

Wow, I've never gotten this many replies from a /. thread.

Just a few comments:

You only demonstrate the dangers of bad science education, coupled with an unreasonable belief in numbers.

I'll be the first to admit that most of my scientific education sucks. I'm not sure what you mean by an unreasonable belief in numbers. I know my output numbers are only as good as my input numbers, but that's why I asked for people to confirm my input numbers, which several people did.

I think most actually deconfirmed them. By unreasonable belief in numbers I mean that somebody gave you some cool numbers which seem to have an interesting implication on the anthropogen CO2 discussion. Now, instead of running a few quick checks to see that the numbers must be wrong (e.g. in order to produce 10 tons of CO2 per year, a human would have to ingest 2.7 tons of Carbon per year, or 7.4 kg per day - that's a lot of dry spaghetti), you repeat them...totally ignoring the fact that those numbers are irrelevant anyways. Numbers are only valuable if you understand the process they describe - it's the old apples and oranges problem. Your original comparison is like saying "no, the garden hose will never make the pool overflow - see how much more water the circulation pump moves".

30 million tons for what? That sounds like a reasonable number for daily worldwide production and a particular definition of industrial processes.

My original source was inaccurate, but RayBender corrected me here and provided some better sources. Essentially, we produce 6-7 billion tons of CO2 a year by doing other things than breathing.

No, he (and the other poster in the thread) claimed that fossil fuel amounts to 6-7 billion tons of Carbon emission. CO2 is one atom of Carbon (atomic weight 12) and two of Oxygen (atomic weight 16), for a total molecular weight of 44. Hence the 6-7 billion tons of carbon correspond to 22-26 billion tons of CO2, compared to my estimate of 28 billion tons.

Using again the corrected numbers, we arrive at 6 billion tons (6x10^9) for CO2 produced by human breathing. So you underestimated CO2 production from fossil sources by a factor of 1000 and overestimated breathing CO2 production by a factor of 10.

Someone else (probably RayBender again, he's pretty smart) pointed out that I messed up the weight of the CO2 by a factor of 10, so humans do produce about 7 x 10^9 tons of CO2 in a year, about the same as is produced by industrial processes. You seem to be overestimating the amount of CO2 produced by fossil sources, although I would be interested to see your sources.

No, RayBender and I are in fairly good agreement (+/- 20%, which is quite ok for this kind of back-of-the-envelope estimate). I based my numbers on the amount of fosil fues actually produced each year.

Yes, I see it, but you don't. Those numbers don't matter at all because the CO2 produced by breathing is part of a CO2 cycle. That is, all Carbon in our breath comes from food (in the end, from plants), who extracted it from the air while growing. As long as we don't start eating synthetic food, our net CO2 production from breathing is exactly zero.

Now this is one of the more interesting points in this part of the thread so far. As world population grows with advances in industry, there are advances in agriculture and more plants grown to feed everyone, which offsets the increased CO2 from more humans exhaling. Of course, there are some practical problems with this:

Most people don't confine their diet to plants. Domesticated food animals are going to be bred in greater numbers as well, which also produce CO2 in breathing. Of course, these animals have to eat too, and so more plants have to be grown to feed them.

I don't know if you are aware of that, but Carbon (

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

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.

You continue to conflate facts and theories. You say that I am "[describing theories] as absolute fact". In fact, I've done no such thing, but instead tried to get you to understand the difference between scientific theory and factual observation. And you may not realize you are talking philosophy here, but if that is the case you are speaking their language from ignorance. You can try to intermix them as much as you want, but those things we can directly measure and have measured are established facts. The theories try to explain the facts.

In fact, the standard definition of a theory is: the best explanation that fits the available facts . You seem to think I don't know what a theory is. I do. You don't. You are absolutely right that a core of scientific understanding is that theories can (and should) be challenged (though your phrasing - "just a theory" - betrays your motivations. no scientist would say that, they'd say, "best available theory", or something of the sort).

However, no scientist would describe the fact that the earth moves around the sun as "the theory of the earth travelling around the sun", or "just a theory". The earth travels around the sun. It's a fact. For you to call it a theory proves that you don't know what the hell you're talking about.

What you're doing is taking a basic misunderstanding of scientific methods and applying them to your misguided worldview with flawed logic, and at the same time trying to suggest that scientists would agree with you. They wouldn't. If you want to persist in your views, you have every right. If you want to call it science, that is your right as well. It doesn't make you correct.

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

So prey tell what are my motivations?

The earth travels round the sun? Hum, strange cos current theory say it only does so if looked at from the correct frame of reference. Now that is a good theory and is a theory which belies your FACT of the earth going round the sun. "Fact" and theory are, in some senses, not seperable as to understand the "fact" you must have a theory

Observations are measurements. They are inherently inaccurate. We can measure the relative motion of the earth wrt the sun. This measurement has errors but we are pretty sure about the bounds on those errors. However they are still open for modification as better/more accurate results come in.

As I said in my first reply to you. If your definition of "fact" does not include terms such as "with absolute certainty" or "inarguable" or
"incontrovertable" then we would probably agree.

If your definition of fact does include any absolutes then we will have to agree to disagree.

I still want to know what you think the motives behind my beliefs are. If it helps I am agnostic and have been performing scientific research for about 7 years now. I don't have a score to settle with the scientific establishment.

Re:Who to believe?

[Doomdark]

Point taken. Should have worded that one bit differently. :-)

I wasn't quoting original article though, and was hoping some highlights from there... as I think scientists in question did word their complaints much better than I did my question. It's too easy to just label groups of people, instead of arguing their points; in this case there's not much point in arguing signer's political biases if any (but if so, then why did I even bother asking... dunno. :-) ).

Re:Who to believe?

[Wastl]

Since I am not too familiar with the issue, I'd rather leave that to the experts instead of just claiming "you can't predict this and that".

Even if you are right, experts are experts (and politicians are politicians, for that matter). If an expert has something to say about his field, he should be allowed to speak, even if you personally disagree. Science is also discourse. If you effectively disallow one opinion on a matter that is not yet settled, you will never find truth.

Sebastian

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

The earth travels round the sun? Hum, strange cos current theory say it only does so if looked at from the correct frame of reference.

This particular physics argument is far more than we can hash out here. Just out of curiosity, however, from what possible frame of reference would we be able to observe the earth not going around the sun?

Let's make this simpler:

The sun emits electromagnetic radiation in various wavelengths. It's a scientific fact. All sorts of theories have emerged from this fact.

Do you agree? Or do you believe that there is even a 10^-65 chance that some day we will discover the sun does not give out light?

I still want to know what you think the motives behind my beliefs are. If it helps I am agnostic and have been performing scientific research for about 7 years now.

With all due respect, I must say I'm surprised. You used the phrase "just a theory", which is usually a sure tell for either a creationist or an "intelligent design" advocate. You also argue like them.

Re:Who to believe?

[ksheff]

Connections get you grant money, and with out that, well, you just as well be a lab TA. Hell, this is even the case within Federal science facilities. This is just a case of a leftist political action group not liking the appointments and trying to hide behind science.

Re:Who to believe?

[matfud]

Im not a creationist and as far as I can tell intelligent design is just a rehash of creationist concepts. This is a theory that has little or no praticable use to me. Mind you, evolution is not much praticable use to me either as I am not an biologist/botonist or researching a field where the debate is of great consequence. However the theories of evolution do seem to suit the criteria of being the simplest explanation that fits our observations. I'm pretty happy with them.

If you use the a fixed point on earth as a frame of reference (which was done for may centuaries) then the sun seems to go around the earth. Stars and planets take on strange paths (precession). The concept of orbital mechanics, Newtonian or relatavistic, are theories which explain very well (not perfectly though) the behaviour that is observed. That theory, or fact as it is often called, biases peoples thinking about their interpretation of the observations. However our interpretation of observation is strongly linked to our theories and models of our environment.

Electromagentic radiation is something that can be observed, or rather we can observe something and have developed a theory from the observations which seems to be able to model and predict the observations that are made. Part of that theory is electromagnetic radiation. It works and therefore is used. Is it an absolute fact? Theoretical physics is changing the framework within which electromagnetics fit in attempts to extend our knowledge. This often involves major changes to our understanding of what it actaully is that is being measured. However jsut like Newtonian orbital mechanics is adequate for handling many problems, treating the radiation from the sun as simple waves (or even wave particle dualities) is adequate for most of our needs. In effect this is the principle of Occams Razor. Use the simplest theory which allows you to do what you need to do.

I used the term "just a theory" to emphasise the idea that theories are not absolute. They are just theories. Hopefully they will be proved wrong someday and by doing so we will learn more about what is being studied.

Re:Who to believe?

[bytepuncher]

I was going to flame that reply, but it flames itself. Anyone that has the mental capacity to read and understand the complete evidence knows what complete idiocy was presented by the anonymous coward.

Re:Who to believe?

[MrResistor]

I think the line you're drawing between policy and science is both artificial and dangerous. Good policy is based on good science. It's that simple. When you have policies which directly contradict the science, such as the mentioned lead situation, those policies are at best wrong and stupid, and the political manueverings behind the specific example above suggest a fair amount of evil as well.

Re:Who to believe?

[Rostin]

"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."

I haven't read the complete statement, so I'm just going on this little portion of the summary, and I assume you are as well.

I think you are drawing some conclusions that aren't really fair.

The legal limits for different types of chemicals are obviously based in part on science. But there must be a recognition that 0 ppm of a toxic chemical is better than 50 ppm. The reason the legal limits aren't 0 for all these carcinogens and toxins is because it is understood that 0 ppm is impossible to achieve without doing away with the chemicals altogether, and we just can't afford to do that. Policy on allowable levels must be a careful balance between, "How toxic is this stuff?" and "What would it cost us to make things safer?" Typically speaking, the people suited to understanding the first question are not the same people suited to understanding the second one, and vice versa. A viable answer only comes out of a dialogue between experts in both areas.

Your interpretation of matters is one possibility. It is also possible that the panel was made up of people who have no appreciation for economic realities and made a recommendation that reflects that ignorance. As a result, the recommendation was rejected, it was realized that the panel isn't making realistic recommendations, and some people on the panel were replaced with people who could intelligently address that side of things. People with "ties to the lead industry" anyone?

Re:Who to believe?

[MrResistor]

I haven't read the complete statement, so I'm just going on this little portion of the summary, and I assume you are as well.

Correct, and based on that breif summary you make some good points, so I decided to educate myself further by reading the article (or at least the portion pertaining to the immediate discussion, as I unfortunately don't have time to read the complete report).

Your interpretation of matters is one possibility. It is also possible that the panel was made up of people who have no appreciation for economic realities and made a recommendation that reflects that ignorance.

The panel we're talking about here, The CDC Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, is a scientific advisory panel. The purpose of these panels is to make policy recommendations based on science, not economics. Appointments to these panels are made, by both tradition and law, on the basis of merit, and in a manner which is supposed to minimize inappropriate influence by the appointing authority or by any special interest. In other words, NOT people with ties to the lead industry.

In this particular case, one of the appointees dismissed, Dr. Michael Weitzman, was a respected expert on the subject of lead exposure, having actually done research in the area and being widely published on the subject in peer-reviewed journals.

His replacement, Dr. William Banner, has never done any research related to lead exposure, and was at the time of his nomination retained as an expert witness by the Lead Industries Association. His expressed views on the subject are considered "fringe" by experts in the field. From the article: "As one medical researcher explains it, Banner's position either ignores or willfully misreads some four decades' worth of accumulating data on lead exposure in children."

Dr. Banner is at least a toxicologist, though. Another replacement, Dr. Kimberly Thompson, can't even claim that level of qualification. Additionally, according to the article, she "has no fewer than 22 funders with a financial interest in the deliberations of the CDC panel and at least two--Atlantic Richfield Corp. and E.I. Dupont de Nemours and Co.--named as defendants in the Rhode Island case against the lead paint industry." (the same case for which Dr. Banner was retained as an expert witness)

The quote introducing this portion of the paper, Undermining the Quality and Integrity of the Appointment Process, sums it up neatly I think. I would have just presented it alone, but I thought you might dismiss it as "sour grapes" from someone whose nomination to the commitee was scuttled:

"The real issue here is that we are allowing scientific advisory committees to be contaminated by people who have clear bias, clear financial conflicts that will not allow them to make unbiased scientific decisions."

I must conclude, after reading the relevant portion of the article, that my conclusions are certainly "fair", at least in the sense that they are supported by the evidence.

You might also dismiss this as "the sort of thing that happens all the time". You'd be wrong. Again from the article:"According to Dr. Susan Cummins, who chaired the CDC's lead advisory committee from 1995 to 2000, this was the first time an HHS secretary had ever rejected nominations by the committee or CDC staff. In place of the respected researchers the CDC staff had recommended, Thompson's office appointed five individuals who were all distinguished by the likelihood that they would oppose tightening the federal lead poisoning standard."

But there must be a recognition that 0 ppm of a toxic chemical is better than 50 ppm. The reason the legal limits aren't 0 for all these carcinogens and toxins is because it is understood that 0 ppm is impossible to achieve without doing away with the chemicals altogether, and we just can't afford to do that.

This is a gross simplification of the issue. There are many toxins which are harmful in high doses, but benefi

I think you mean...

[mekkab]

accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.

Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.

Re:I think you mean...

[tds67]

Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.

I wish people would lay off of Bush. I never go hungry since he's put food on my family.

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Strange ... he took food away from my family and I.

Re:I think you mean...

[magarity]

What a mess! I'd rather have food on the table.

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:I think you mean...

[LarsWestergren]

Now now, stop misunderestimating him. You are lucky he is not a revengeful person.

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.
-----

Another common mistake is not knowing that both pronunciations of nuclear are correct...

Read your dictionary? :P

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

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

Re:I think you mean...

[orthogonal]

I wish people would lay off of Bush. I never go hungry since he's put food on my family.

Bush has put food on your family?

Your family would be the Greens?

The Soylent Greens?

Re:I think you mean...

[Simon Brooke]

Now now, stop misunderestimating him. You are lucky he is not a revengeful person.

I thought it was impossible sufficiently to misunderestimate Bush?

Re:I think you mean...

[theghost]

After all, he is one hell of a strategerist!

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

ooh, nice bushism. should be "family and me"

Re:I think you mean...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, that would be putting his family in the food.

Re:I think you mean...

[Sloppy]

I've got a good evidence that there is some people who just want to conflict harm on the president. They don't understand that a leadership is someone who brings people together.

Point

[onyxruby]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

I do believe that's the point.

Re:Point

[October_30th]

he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

Indeed.

But I'm sure that the administration will feel generous and provide all these scientists a short series of re-educational seminars on a tropical paradise island just south of Florida.

All inclusive.

Re:Point

[Jotaigna]

After reading "stupid white men" by Michael Moore i think there is where they are heading.

He points enough environmental science facts ignored by Bush's administration(SUV gas and mileage, arsenide in tap water, tons of garbage, etc) that almost made me puke!.

Re:Point

[Anonymous Coward]

He's also prepared to fight for the freedom in America - unless, of course, you are not a white, protestant-christian, heterosexual familyman/woman.

Re:Point

[rilister]

Help me out - what does 'troubled' mean in that sentence:

is it:
a) we recognise your concerns and, by golly, you might be right. That's sure troubling.

b) I am troubled that you would express your disatissfaction and unpatriotic opinions. Isn't the FBI paid to watch these people?

Re:Point

[Midnight Thunder]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

I do believe that's the point. ... and the Earth is flat and the sun revolves around the Earth.

Re:Point

[Anonymous Coward]

Given privious stinks in this administration, I'd say B is the much more likely option.

Wake me up...

[HotNeedleOfInquiry]

After Michael leaves for the day.

WMD?

[zgwortz962]

Typical. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming some country has Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext to start a war.

Oops. Too late.

Re:WMD?

[DR SoB]

What do you think will happen if some small hostile arabic country actually starts testing nuclear weapons? Oh wait.. Pakisitan.. Right..

Re:WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pakistan small? You've got to be kidding. 145M people isn't a small country.

Re:WMD?

[proj_2501]

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

Re:WMD?

[leerpm]

In that case the administration would do nothing. Look at North Korea. They have nuclear weapons, they have the capability to strike. And they have been at war with a US ally for the past 50 years. The Bush administration will not touch them however, because they are too scared of what would happen if they tried to take over North Korea.

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:WMD?

[DR SoB]

Not really hostile? Wow, bush really does have you fooled. Maybe you need to research the history a little more..

BTW- They _ARE_ Arabic, not to mention Muslim as well.

Do you think Iraq was a Muslim country? News flash- It _wasn't_.

Re:WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

N. Korea is nothing. It would be a slaughter. Respect them.. for what? cause they have nukes? we could take out all thier plants in 25 minutes if they were an immediate threat. but they are not. they only use nukes to get money. Its the equivilant of your wife saying "i'll leave you" but she knows she gets almost everything she wants. Its just a ploy to get more. N. Korea was never in danger of going to war with us. Talks only started. (talks means we want $$$$, we will give you $ okay make it $$ we have a deal DONE!) Then the Nations give smiles and it looks like both presidents saved both contries to the public. they are hero's! yay!

Re:WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Pakistan is a hostile country.

However, it's not Arab. The people who live there are ethically Indian, to the extent that you can lump all the people from the various groups who live in Indian into a single collection.

Back in the old days, Indian, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were all one country. They partitioned in the Nehru days (I think) into India for the Hindus and Pakistan and Bangladesh for the Muslims.

Re:WMD?

[pianophile]

Maybe you need to research the history a little more [...] BTW- They _ARE_ Arabic,

I think you need to do a little more research yourself. For the most part, Pakistanis are culturally and linguistically Indian (with some Iranian and Central Asian thrown in), not Arabic.

Re:WMD?

[DR SoB]

You are somewhat correct, though not completely.. I still of course believe it's Arabic.

As for saying they are ethically Indian, that just depends on when you look at the map. I could say that they are ethically British too, and that would be true, again, depending on what time period you looked at the map.

"Back in the old days, Indian, Pakistan, and Bangladesh were all one country."

True, they were also at one point, just a British colony.. I'm talking about TODAY.

"They partitioned in the Nehru days (I think) into India for the Hindus and Pakistan and Bangladesh for the Muslims."

Well, India is 50% Muslim.. And Pakistan and Bangladesh have high Hindu counts, but let's just take it from a "Who's in control of the gov't" stand point, then I'd agree with you completely.. :)

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:WMD?

[radish]

Oh and by the way...

Do you think Iraq was a Muslim country? News flash- It _wasn't_.

News flash - it was. From your very own CIA World Factbook:

Religions:
Muslim 97% (Shi'a 60%-65%, Sunni 32%-37%), Christian or other 3%


I think 97% is enough to qualify as a Muslim country, regardless of whether the government was officially Islamic or not.

Re:WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

I could say that they are ethically British too, and that would be true, again, depending on what time period you looked at the map.

Um... no. At no time in history was India ethnically British. I think you're confused about what an ethnic group is, and how it's different from a religious group.

Pakistan is not an Arab country. They are, in fact, nowhere near the Arab lands. The whole of Persia (now mostly Iran) lies between Pakistan and greater Arabia.

Re:WMD?

[DR SoB]

And you call me ignorant. "Muslim country" indicates a Muslim gov't... Saddam Hussain was anything but a devout Muslim. Keep trying!

"I think 97% is enough to qualify as a Muslim country, regardless of whether the government was officially Islamic or not."

Wrong. You see, the majority of Americans are/were Christain(Catholic, whatever), but they are a DEMOCRATIC society/gov't, "NOT RUN BY GOD", a seperation of Church and State, is the popular term. Got that? Back in England, when the Pope had more power than the king, that was a Catholic gov't.

NEXT!

Re:WMD?

[DR SoB]

"At no time in history was India ethnically British. "

Look up Ghandi.

"I think you're confused about what an ethnic group is, and how it's different from a religious group."

Sounds like your implying they were "religiously" British, as opposed to ethnically.

If your born in a British colony, what does that make you?!

Re:WMD?

[DR SoB]

Are you an American? Because what you seem to know about YOUR OWN COUNTRY is startling, to say the least, if you are..

"N. Korea was never in danger of going to war with us. "

North Korea, IS AT WAR WITH YOU. There is a CEASE FIRE, that was signed, but technically, YOU ARE STILL AT WAR.

Link for your information:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030218-052 32 4-8478r

Quote from article:

"SEOUL, South Korea, Feb. 18 (UPI) -- Tensions on the Korean peninsula were ratcheted higher Tuesday as North Korea said it was ready to scrap the cease-fire agreement that ended the Korean War to cope with threats from the United States."

Re:WMD?

[scm]

Opps, I accidentially modded this down instead of up... I'm lame and am posting to remove my mod points. Teach me to mod before I've had my coffee.

Re:WMD?

[Anonymous Coward]

Look up Ghandi.

Ghandi was from Gujurat. Nothing British about him.

If your born in a British colony, what does that make you?!

It might make you a British citizen, but it's not going to change your genetic makeup. Ethnicity is linked to ancestry, not your passport.

Re:WMD?

[dara]

"Arabic" means descended from the people of countries such as Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, etc - based around the Gulf

You are going to have to take Iran of this list. They don't speak Arabic (they speak Farsi), and they are not descendants of Arabic peoples (though they were conquered by them). It's my understanding that many Iranians would be insulted, if you called them Arabs as they are still a bit prejudiced against them.

Dara (I'm 1/2 Iranian, born in the US, don't speak Farsi, and personally could care less if I was considered 1/2 Arabic or not)

Re:WMD?

[jnicholson]

Politically British, but neither ethnically nor religiously (necessarily).

Maybe culturally...

Re:WMD?

[jnicholson]

I thought N Korea was still technically at war with S. Korea, not with the US.

Or have you been too subtle for me?

Re:WMD?

[radish]

Oops. I apologise on behalf of any Iranians reading :) I was trying to describe the general geographic area, but I guess you need to factor in the politics too. Oh well, I'll try harder next time. Point remains, Pakistan is even less Arabic ;)

Re:WMD?

[radish]

What a country calls itself and what it is are two different things. Likewise, the religon (or lack thereof) of it's leader doesn't affect what it is. Bush is a christian, I would call the USA a largely christian based society, although officially of course it is secular. The fact that the money still says "In God We Trust" and the national anthem mentions God gives me these clues, plus, as you say, there are a large number of christian (majority? not sure) people. So whether Iraq was officially Muslim (from what I read Saddam declared it secular, like the US), or not, and whether he was Muslim or not (again, he was not but supported the Shi'ite muslims with policy), makes little difference to the fact that it was and is a culture based on Islam, as that is what 97% of it's population practise.

Oh and by the way, being democratic is nothing to do with whether or not you have a state religion. There are many countries which show this.

Re:WMD?

[nicotinix]

You mean Weapons of Math Destruction?

Re:WMD?

[jlowery]

The threat from North Korea is not that it will be on a par with the US vis a vis the ability dissuade attack (MAD doctrine). The threat is that the regime will use its weapons as blackmail: if the regime is about to fall, it will threaten to take a few tens of millions of innocent people with it. As a consequence, it gets aid to prop it up.

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.

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[nomadic]

Oh please, if you don't see any difference between them then it's pointless to try to explain it to you...

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[metacosm]

Union of Concerned Scientists ...
"Citizens and Scientists For Enviromental Solutions"

This isn't and random independant group, it is a enviromental activism group. They selected the elegant name to try to cover up the fact that they are a simple lobby group.

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. One's special interest is Enron. The others' is science.

Dude, vote for whoever, I'm not American and however you decide to fuck up your country really doesn't affect me at all. Enjoy!

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[yroJJory]

Dude, vote for whoever, I'm not American and however you decide to fuck up your country really doesn't affect me at all. Enjoy!

Yeah, until BushCo decides that your country has something his cronies wants. Then you'll be sorry.

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[Elwood P Dowd]

I'm really interested if that's the case. Have any evidence to back that up?

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[metacosm]

http://www.ucsusa.org/ (their homepage!)

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[Elwood P Dowd]

Ah, crap. Fucking hippies.

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[Roto-Rooter Man]

One's special interest is Enron.

Brilliant comment to make on the day the administration indicts Enron's former CEO. But hey, you've already decided Bush cares more about Enron than about the country, so I'm sure that fact's irrelevant to you.

Re:Clearly the Bush admin is biased...

[RayBender]

That's a bit of a mis-statement. The UCS is an independent group of scientists with a range of societal concerns including nuclear proliferation and disarmament, and yes, environmental problems.

But you ignored the fact that the 20 Nobel Laureats that CO-SIGNED the document are not all UCS people. It's not just "some random lobby group"; they wrote something, and a bunch of other scientists agreed enough to co-sign.

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.

Re:Uh huh..

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, you know, Stalin was really good at reaching out to, and coming to an understanding with, Soviet scientists whose work cast doubt on the inevitable glorious triumph of New Socialist Man over not only the imperialistic forces of bourgeoise capitalism, but also nature itself. And there was nothing touchy-feely about it. <1/2 g>

Re:Uh huh..

[oolon]

They'll have to come up with solid data to refute these claims.

I think if they want the administration to take them seriously, they should come up with some cold hard cash.

James

Re:Uh huh..

[El_Ehmenopio]

You may want to read "Ghost of the executed engineer" it is a non-fiction acount, which may interest you.

Re:Uh huh..

[Woy]

Well, you know, Stalin was really good at reaching out to, and coming to an understanding with, Soviet scientists whose work cast doubt on the inevitable glorious triumph of New Socialist Man over not only the imperialistic forces of bourgeoise capitalism, but also nature itself. And there was nothing touchy-feely about it.

You might want to consider the result of that policy on the prosperity of the countries of the former soviet union. And you might want to consider how little the regime eventually lasted (on an historical scale).

Re:Uh huh..

[PantsWearer]

Actually, it was very touchy-feely; Stalin touched them and they didn't feel anymore.

Re:Uh huh..

[|/|/|||]

Uh, the grandparent post is referring to how the administration can get scientists and American citizens to take them seriously. The ball is in Bush's court, not the other way around. Of course, he can always just toss it out of bounds and wave his hands around, proclaiming that there never was a ball to begin with. What's sad is that this strategy just might work, with the ignorance and general laziness of the average citizen of the USA.

Re:Uh huh..

[Daniel Dvorkin]

I have considered it. That was kind of my point.

To be more explicit: attempts to make natural reality conform to ideology are doomed to fail. The refusal to realize this was a large part of what doomed the USSR ... and if the US keeps going down its current road, the same thing will happen to us.

Well.. think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

If you were the manufacturer of lead poisoning tests and such, you'd definitely want your lobby position to revolve around "Lead is gonna poison us all!1!! OMG!" Sometimes it's good to turn down special interests, even if they are claiming they are doing it for your good.

Re:Well.. think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Go suck a lead pipe. Do you honestly not believe in lead poisoning? Jesus Christ, some of you people on here are utterly moronic.

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!

Re:Well.. think about it.

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't pour it into my source of drinking water, or eliminate regulations that prevent that from happening.

Not surprising.

[Anonymous Coward]

We might as well have Jerry Falwell as President.

Marburger says...

[rsidd]

"...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."

Which has nothing to do with the accusations the scientists are making. I wonder what sort of mindset the administration has when its science advisor can't even read the letter he's responding to.

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:Marburger says...

[aws4y]

Yeah, the national institues of health also have stated to confrences of developmental scientest that any reseach showing that, single parent families of families with working mothers, are just as stable as the "normal" 2 parent 1 income house holds, will not be funded. This happened at a confrence on child development. My mother an her collegues were shocked at this announcement. I, of course, didnt care, I am only an astrophysics student, then Bush announces his Mars push and Hubble is gone and all the astronomy probes that were planed for the next ten years are in jepordy. So yes this adiministration has a very poor record of distrorting facts and ignoring scientific goals.

PS All that NSF funding has been going to projects that benefit DARPA and Homeland Security not fundamental science.

Re:Marburger says...

[Syberghost]

Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?

A: Syria.

Re:Marburger says...

[tm2b]

"...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."

Translation: "Like, I'm so confused! I thought we paid these guys off!"

Re:Marburger says...

[Maestro4k]

• Which has nothing to do with the accusations the scientists are making. I wonder what sort of mindset the administration has when its science advisor can't even read the letter he's responding to.

Oh, I think he read it, he's just delusional or in his own little world (created by Bush no doubt, he sounds like quite the flunky).

What scared me was how much he reminded me of the Iraqi Information Minister from the war. You know, the guy claiming they were winning as tanks rolled in to Baghdad?

One other lovely quote from him was:

• I think there are reasonable explanations for nearly all the things in the report, and rather than look for what those explanations might be, I think the (researchers were) somewhat biased in favor of a sweeping opinion of what this administration is all about, and I just don't think that's justified."

Notice how he didn't say ALL, but only nearly all. I think he just justified their report himself. From what I read in the report, even one item not having a reasonable explanation is very bad.

Re:Marburger says...

[bremstrong]

> "...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."
>
>Which has nothing to do with the accusations the scientists are making. I wonder what sort of mindset the administration has when its science advisor can't even read the letter he's responding to.

It is simply a subtle or not so subtle threat--if they can increase funding, they can decrease it as well.

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?
A: The war was called "defending Iraqi freedom" not "Saving America from WMD's".

Since this is an election year people have got you to think its the latter because its the only 1 out of 20 reasons given that ended up to be wrong. Brilliant move by the left, Stupid move from people.
I apoligise for posting as AC but political debates are too emotional instead of logical.

Re:Marburger says...

[love2hateMS]

My goodness. If you are going to criticize, try using a spell-checker. You mispelled the same words repeatedly, therefore they are not typos.

Conference
Administration
Distorting
Institut e
Scientist
Research

Astrophysics student? How did you graduate from high school? You must be educated by these same academics.

Re:Marburger says...

[SavoWood]

I'm posting this message from the NIH right now. This year, our IT budget was cut to (not by) a third. We still have all the same problems to handle, but now we have to do it with two thirds less money.

Now if I could just get them to drop the Windows based email and servers and move over to *BSD/Linux/OSX, we'd be able to meet our budget problem. I'm doing my part, one computer at a time. =-)

Re:Marburger says...

[drooling-dog]

"...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."

Yet the Environmental Protection Agency is taking a big hit (7%, I think) in Bush's budget proposal. Is anyone surprised?

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

You totally read my mind. I was all set to post the exact same response, word-for-word, until I saw that you beat me to it.

Guys: the fact that we haven't found the stockpiles doesn't mean they weren't there. It means they're someplace else now. We should be more concerned about Iraqi chemical weapons now, not less.

Idiots.

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Occams Razor. The simplest solution is most often correct. The simplest solution in this case isn't that the weapons were moved (after all, that would have taken some serious logistics, which would likely have been noticed), but rather that no such weapons existed in the first place. Bush just wanted an excuse.

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, and don't forget the sentence structure that isn't. Behold this abortion:
Yeah, the national institues of health also have stated to confrences of developmental scientest that any reseach showing that, single parent families of families with working mothers, are just as stable as the "normal" 2 parent 1 income house holds, will not be funded. This happened at a confrence on child development.

Re:Marburger says...

[Lars T.]

You mean Bush started the war against Iraq so he could then start a war against Syria?

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, they'll find the wmd a few months before the elections.

Re:Marburger says...

[m0rphin3]

Oh, so if WWII was called 'Operation European Liberty' by the Germans, everything would have been OK? Since that was what the war was CALLED?!
Didn't you ever wonder if the Pentagon had a PR department? With some marketroids working there?

Re:Marburger says...

[zeux]

Be kind and please give us the list of the 19 others.

Re:Marburger says...

[Syberghost]

The simplest solution in this case isn't that the weapons were moved (after all, that would have taken some serious logistics, which would likely have been noticed), but rather that no such weapons existed in the first place.

It was noticed.

However, OK, you want to play Occam's Razor:

The UN found lots of chemical weapons. Iraq documented in detail the elimination of part of them. What's the simplest explanation as to why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even after threat of invasion?

Re:Marburger says...

[k_head]

Ooooh. A person with a link to the washington times in his signature telling us that syria has WMDs. Yes I think i'll believe you when pigs fly with aid of magic monkey fairy dust.

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Duh. It was *not* a war. Last time I checked the US never actually signed a war declaration. Why? Oh, yes, it would have caused a PR hell and forced them to obey war treaties. Those filthy iraqi terrorists don't deserve justice, do they?

Re:Marburger says...

[Simon Brooke]

The UN found lots of chemical weapons. Iraq documented in detail the elimination of part of them. What's the simplest explanation as to why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even after threat of invasion?

Their neighbours - against most of whom they'd fought bitter wars - would realise they were defenceless and give them a good kicking?

Seriously, if you were Saddam, facing a seriously pissed off Iran on one border, a seriously pissed off Kuwait on another border, and some well organised and seriously pissed off Kurds in your own country (not to mention a fairly thoroughly disaffected population) would you have wanted to dance around saying 'look, look, I'm defenceless'? You'd be bloody mad. Saddam was between a rock and a hard place. Both the rock and the hard place were of his own making, but to admit he hadn't got any significant weaponry would have been suicidal. To claim he had would have been suicidal too. So muddying the water was the only strategy he could use which had any chance of working. It didn't work, but that doesn't make it stupid.

Re:Marburger says...

[Steve525]

John Marburger actually isn't a politician, at least not by training. He was a physicist in the field of QEX (quantum electrodynamics - i.e. lasers, atoms, etc.). He was actually on my PhD defense committee during the brief time he returned to being a professor after serving as the president of the university for a number of years. The man is not a politician who knows nothing about science. He was actually a respected scientest before going into politics.

On the other hand, he's been in administration or politics now a long time, so acting like a politician is perhaps unavoidable. In addition, he has no choice but to toe the party line, so it's impossible to know what he really thinks.

Re:Marburger says...

[uxo]

aws4y:

...then Bush announces his Mars push and Hubble is gone and all the astronomy probes that were planed for the next ten years are in jepordy [sic].

Oh no! You mean the James Webb Space Telescope they're replacing Hubble with is being cancelled? That's news to me.

Re:Marburger says...

[vondo]

Yes, all of that is true, but he is a politician in the generic sense of the word. (I don't think you can be a university president or a lab director without being a politician, even if your education is in science).

Many of us had high hopes because Marburger was more of a scientist than the last few people who've held his post, but this administration is more autocratic than previous administrations. No deviation from the party line is allowed.

BTW, Howard Dean and Bill Frist are doctors by training, but they are certainly politicians too.

Re:Marburger says...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, if you were Saddam, facing a seriously pissed off Iran on one border...

Hmm? Iran won the Iran-Iraq war. Iran controls the Shat al Arab waterway, which is what the war was about. Iran is no threat to Iraq.

a seriously pissed off Kuwait on another border

Kuwait has no military forces to speak of.

and some well organised and seriously pissed off Kurds in your own country

Not pissed at all. Happy to live autonomously. Besides, they also had no military to speak of.

would you have wanted to dance around saying 'look, look, I'm defenceless'?

Iraq had one of the largest armies in the world. By far, the largest army in the region, consisting of over a million men. They were far from defenseless.

Saddam was between a rock and a hard place.

Aw, poor baby.

He was up against the wall, and he decided to stick his hand in his pocket. Wrong choice.

It's obvious that you know nothing about international politics. Please bow out of the discussion now and let the grown-ups talk.

Re:Marburger says...

[Steve525]

No arguement here. (I had pretty much agreed with everything you just said in my second paragraph). I was just giving some background on Marburger for those who might not realize he does have some scientific knowledge.

It is impossible to know how much influence Marburger has over the current administration's policies. It also been my experience (when dealing with certain funding agencies) that the current administration is more autocratic, as you put it.

I've never know Marburger to be evil in the way I often find this administration to be, so I like to believe that it's not his fault when things like this happen. (Although I have known him to frequently sound like a politician. I guess it comes with the territory). Maybe he points out the increases in funding for his own personal rationalization. Yes, I am part of this (evil) administration, but I am trying to at least do some good while I'm here.

Re:Marburger says...

[sg3000]

> why they refused to document elimination of the rest, even
> after threat of invasion?

Occam's Razor would still suggest they didn't have them. Which is more likely?

A. Saddam Hussein was a madman who had nuclear weapons, 25,000 tons of Anthrax, etc, and hid them successfully from U.N. weapons inspectors for months. Then he refused to use them on the U.S. as we invaded, and now we can't find anything despite nearly a year of searching.

B. Saddam Hussein was a tinpot dictator who had no weapons any longer. Thus, he had no weapons to be found or to be used during the war.

B is clearly the simpler explanation.

Re:Marburger says...

[Syberghost]

B is clearly the simpler explanation.

Then what was in all those trucks headed to Syria?

Re:Marburger says...

[deewite]

The internet was a DARPA research project. Would you care to complain about that?

Re:Marburger says...

[jnicholson]

Why's that mod'ed funny? It's exactly what I thought when I read it, and more scary than funny.

You Become What You Hate

[nightsweat]

And we've now become the former Soviet Union as far as uncomfortable science goes.

Good job, shrub.

Re:You Become What You Hate

[Elwood P Dowd]

Semi-interestingly, the USSR had problems with Darwinian evolution too. Obviously not because of belief in creationism, but because they felt it went against communist ideals.

Of course, it doesn't. But it's funny how the two superpowers both had so much trouble coming to terms with such a simple concept.

Re:You Become What You Hate

[caseydk]

Semi-interestingly, the USSR had problems with Darwinian evolution too. Obviously not because of belief in creationism, but because they felt it went against communist ideals.

Actually Darwinism goes directly against communist ideals. It DEPENDS on there being differences and on one group (species) benefiting from those differences while others suffer and die from not having those differences.

ie. "Suvival of the fittest"

Darwinism and Communism can't get along. You can't believe that "everyone is treated equally" and at the same time say "all life came from evolution".

Re:You Become What You Hate

[Elwood P Dowd]

In that case Darwinism goes directly against modern humanity. Just because we evolved due to survival of the fittest doesn't mean that we are currently under pressure from a fitness constraint.

Darwinism does not entail Social Darwinism. Go read "The Selfish Gene." I'll take Richard Dawkins' opinion on Darwinian evolution before I'll take yours. Nothing personal.

Re:You Become What You Hate

[Darth23]

In Soviet Russia, scientists distort research to fit-in with government line.

In America government distorts research to fit-in with government line.

What a country.

Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

There are a lot more voting bible-belters than there are scientists.

This administration has made it abundantly clear that they are only concerned with getting reelected. To hell with anything that stands in their way and alienates their voting base.

The US Presidency, much like US Corporations, is afflicted with serious shortsightedness.

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office. And perhaps they'd think about doing things for the good of the nation rather than themselves.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

yeah, but if the winning candidate turns out to be a lying dickhead, we'd be stuck with him for 10 years.
Though it worked well enough for Disney and GE...

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[af4oo]

10 years of Bush???

10 years is way to long for any President. That is just to much power for one person to have that long.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term

I get what you're saying, but on the down side, we'd be stuck with Bush for SIX more years. He's done enough damage in four, don't you think?

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:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Elledan]

If you put people in power for N years, they'll do everything in their power to get re-elected.

Certainly, there'll be some exceptions, but in general it's true that those who want to be the president (or whatever) of a country, state, company or other aren't there to improve things. They want it because, to them, it's a position that is preferable to (most) other positions in society.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[EasyTarget]

Nah, they'd say '10 years of profit and then I retire. Hurrah!'
Consider the money that Haliburton et al. are making from US foreign policy, consider who profits, consider who makes that policy. Now consider how many wars you can let dumb dictators give you excuses for, and start, in that time if you don't have to worry about re-election. Engineering wars takes time you know, Bush/Rumm/Dickie PLC only managed two (well, three if you count the war on terror, and they needed help from Ozzie for that). In ten years they could shaft Iran, N.Korea & Libya with ease, prehaps Syria and Jordan too.. plenty of Oil and profit there folks.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[jridley]

Yes, in this particular case I'd be happier with a 10 WEEK term. He still could have done plenty of damage in that time.

I'm voting for anyTHING that looks capable of defeating him. I would seriously vote for a sock puppet. I made that decision in early 2002, and I'm still sticking with it; I think we would be better off right now if the office had stood vacant since 2000.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[pavon]

Well, There's An Obvious Explanation: There are a lot more voting bible-belters than there are scientists.

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.

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.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

Well, that's the problem -- there are no easy answers.

A 10 year term would seem rather imperious, even monarchical, for most Americans. We have no concerns giving Supreme Court jurists life-time appointments, although after the 2000 elections I think many people are questioning the wisdom of that convention. But a long term for the President would be particularly troublesome if held by someone by Bush who unlike his campaign promises, has led the most divisive Presidency in recent memory.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

they can be touched/impeached. This guy makes a decent argument. Presidents are only concerned with making things good during THIER term. after that who cares if the country falls to shit, it was fine while "i" was there. This president inherited alot of "it will be someones problem but not mine" kind of problems. One of the biggest problems hit us 9 months into his term.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[lambadomy]

How about just not allowing people to be elected twice? Perhaps a single 6 year term.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sorry, I dissagree. Four years of moronic rule is enough. Could you imagine having to put up with Bush's BS for 10 years?!

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Kenja]

Sure there's an easy answer. We just revisit the idea of the King of the Bean. After four years in office, we take who ever was president out into a field and slit their throat.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[GerritHoll]

This administration has made it abundantly clear that they are only concerned with getting reelected. To hell with anything that stands in their way and alienates their voting base.

In this respect, is it different from any other (recent) administration?

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office. And perhaps they'd think about doing things for the good of the nation rather than themselves.

I think this shows that democracy is not perfect. Of all systems, democracy is the least bad. I don't think it would help to have the term be 10 years instead of 4 years. It would only enlarge the power of the government, which can be a dangerous thing. We should find out why it is that the shortsightedness of the government seems to be much worse in the USA than in many European countries. The Dutch government is currently taking a lot of bad (and impopular) decisions regarding the economy (e.g. budget deficit can absolutely not be more than 3%, our finance minister claims). Being Dutch, I have the impression that for example the Swiss system works well. They have a lot of referenda, but it seems the Swiss are using it wisely. It would be more correct to call it too much conservative than too much populistic. I could be wrong regarding Switserland, though. Solution: I don't know. But a longer term would not be it.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[MoneyT]

For an administration only concerned with reelection, invading a country isnt' the brightest of ideas

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[jmoo]

How about we just have shorter election times? Why does it take all year to elect a guy? I can see why back before TV and radio the need to take the time to do an election correctly, but now?

If the election time was just three months (from start of the campaign to the actual election) the politicians would have more time to actual do something than campaign. Also cheaper too...

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[danila]

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term
Hell, no! What is much better is a limit of one term per president. You can also make impeachment easy with online voting for the general population - 20% of the electorate want to impeach the president, he is out of the office.

But in the end, democracy doesn't work for the simple reason that elected officials are not selected for their intelligence or ability to solve problems. They are selected for their ability to become elected, i.e. sneaky, lying, venal bastards.

It would actually make sense to limit presidency to top scientists with 140+ IQ, a couple of publications in Nature/Science and a spotless reputation. Science seems to be the one area where honesty is still somewhat reasonably maintained.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[good soldier svejk]

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.

Unless like Secretary of the Interior Gail Norton's associate James Watt and so many other fundamentalist Christians, those in question (GW Bush?) believe "the earth was put here by the Lord for his people to subdue and to use for profitable purposes." Why preserve nature when Jesus is just going to come back and desroy it anyway? Sounds like a Christianity issue to me. The guy was Secretary of the Interior!

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[jpmkm]

10 years is actually the current maximum for a US president. He could be vice president and take over the presidency two years into the term. Then he could get elected and reelected president. But fortunately, though, the way the system is set up prevents morons like Bush from serving the full ten years. Four is certainly enough.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[2short]

Are you kidding? War is a great popularity booster, at least in the short term. It lets the Pres be portrayed as a bold leader, wrapped in the flag. It's only in the longer term that people start to wonder if the country has been boldly led into a costly morass that will be hell to ever get out of again.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[kellman]

There are a lot more voting bible-belters than there are scientists.

True, but you are making the assumption that Bible-belters don't care about their childrens future. I think if you asked any 'Bible-belter' (how many do you actually know?), they would disagree with your assumption.

This administration has made it abundantly clear that they are only concerned with getting reelected. To hell with anything that stands in their way and alienates their voting base.

On the contrary, Bush seems to be doing things to try to please everyone, but it only pisses off everyone. For example, Medicare prescription coverage. Seniors want it, but at what cost? $450 billion at first passage, and now, it's looking more like $550 billion and rising. Who does that piss off? Every non-babyboomer with the who'll be paying for it for the rest of their lives. Of course, most aren't paying enough attention to care. Secondly, Bush's immigration plan. Who does that make happy? Businesses (small and large) who want cheap labor and (ironicly) liberals who want completely open borders and easy immigration for anyone. How about the National Endowment for the Arts? Bush has proposed increasing their funding by 10-15 million. That's the largest increase ever for the NEA. Art is waaaaaay too subjective and not something the government should be trying to support. Art should be self sufficient to truly be expressive anyway. What you consider art might be patently offensive to me - not an argument the government should be involved in.

The list goes on and on of items that are meant to appease everyone and no one at the same time. Sometimes I wonder what exactly the hell his plan is anyway.

The US Presidency, much like US Corporations, is afflicted with serious shortsightedness.

I agree that the presidential term cycle lends itself to short sightedness, but what does that have to do with Corporations, and especially US corporations? That's just a flame-bait comment.


I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office. And perhaps they'd think about doing things for the good of the nation rather than themselves.

NO, NO, NO! That would be horrible! 10 years and still give the chance for re-election?!?!
I think a 6 year term with no re-election possibility seems like a better compromise.

I think that would help both sides of the presidential political issue: the president trying to get re-elected, and the candidate/parties trying to unseat him from power. They both generate a huge amount of FUD simply for their cause.
Even though you would think scientist would be above this fray, they have their own agenda (just like you and I) as well. A good example is the mercury issue. Scientists/environmental groups want the mecury max-safe level lowered to almost immeasurable levels, but the only study that shows any illness or death from mecury is from post-WWII Japan in an area that was so contaminated it would have made these current scientists faint.

Take what the government gives you with a grain of salt, but take what *everyone* says with a grain of salt too, including the scientists.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[pavon]

That's really stretching it. I don't know a single person who doesn't think that we should utilize the resources here on earth. I don't know anything about James Watt, but I don't consider that statement by itself in anyway incriminating. Furthermore, all the Christians I have known argue that they have the resources they have been given. Their opinions just differ on where the line between using and squandering is, and how much enjoyment of nature should factor into that.

Why preserve nature when Jesus is just going to come back and desroy it anyway?
And since they have no idea when Jesus is going to come back, they'd better not use it up to soon. You are just making a strawman argument.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[MoneyT]

cause a roughly ~58% popularity is great for someone trying to get reelected. War is a great popularity booster only if the people are behind you.

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:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Imperator]

A ten year term? Are you crazy? A 10 year term would mean that when someone like Bush gets "elected", he has 9 years to do whatever the fuck he wants to the country, and 1 year to do things that will get him reelected.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Rotten168]

although after the 2000 elections

Hey, slashdrone, read the constitution sometime.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Nimey]

But what if you have a complete nincompoop elected for President, but he's not such an obvious criminal as to get impeached?

I for one wouldn't want a president like Bush in office for any longer than the current 4 years.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[jocknerd]

Exactly, and thats why this administration has had an ongoing war for a couple of years now. Bush has learned from his fathers mistake. If you go to war, the people think you are a great leader. But if you end the war too early, people aren't distracted by war and try to find another reason to like you. And Bush without a war means no Bush as President.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Drilian]

Alternately, a 10 year term would mean that they could have a full 10 years of trying to push whatever legislation they want through the door. I, personally, could not have abided for a full ten years of George W. I've barely been able to stand four, and I'm going to do everything in my power (which is limited, at best) to make sure the number remains "four" and not "eight." Just because you give them more time at president, does not mean that they will suddenly "do good." I don't feel that anything W. does now would be any different from what he'd do if he were guaranteed more time in office. I think he'd just do more of it.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[good soldier svejk]

And since they have no idea when Jesus is going to come back, they'd better not use it up to soon. You are just making a strawman argument.

Not at all. I am speaking from empirical observation. You are making a rationalist argument that these people couldn't believe this idiocy because it is illogical. But I have actually observed these people making the argument I described. For instance, when a congressional committee asked James Watt what whether he felt we had a responsibility to preserve the environment for future generations, he replied, "I do not know how many future generations we can count of before the Lord returns." Clearly, his apocalyptic faith influenced his anti-environmentalism.

The phenomenon of apocalyptic anti-environmentalism is similar to the increasingly popular Christian Zionism. These folks, including Speaker of the House Tom Delay, believe that the existence of the modern state of Israel is necessary to create appropriate conditions for their much anticipated apocalypse. Therefore they support Israel.

Now, I believe that apocalyptic anti-environmentalism is much more prevalent among the leadership and intelligentsia of the Evangelical community. The rank and file, a much more diverse group than most people realize, tend to hold more mainstream views on the environment. Likewise, most of them probably don't believe, as Falwell and Robertson (not to mention Osama Bin Laden) do, that god gave us "what we deserve" on 9/11. There is, in fact a pretty active evangelical environmentalist movement. However, it is not the rank and file Evangelicals who hold sway over the administration. So long as the leadership can deliver their vote, pretty much guaranteed by the abortion divide, the administration doesn't have to worry about them.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[BigBadBri]

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term

No, that'd just give them another 6 years to rape the country.

Now if it was illegal to have a partisan president (no party affiliation allowed - only independents who can demonstrate their independence allowed to stand), I might agree with you - it might be possible to elect a good person in such a system.

But when the candidates have been through the venal path of governorships, Senate and Congress, and have been suborned for years by lobby groups - no chance.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

Scalia and his buddies could care less about the Constitution.

Tbey are able to thrive because simpletons like you believe the Constitution still matters.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Rotten168]

Clearly the Constitution still matters, or Al Gore would be president today.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[deewite]

I think if Bush was only concerned with getting re-elected, he would not have invaded Iraq, and he certainly has not pandered to his base. (High cost entitlement overhauls, suggesting amnesty to illegal immigrants)

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I'm born again, not born yesterday.

If we wreck the environment, we can't grow food. If we don't grow food we starve. That's pretty simple, and I don't even need an engineering degree to figure that one out.

Now, whether "wrecking" the environment includes over-developing the land with yuppie-houses, poisening it with industrial byproducts, or destroying the growing environment by becoming too hot, cold, dry, or wet, we are still screwed.

And here is a hint, we as taxpayers are not the ones who are profiting off this exploitation of the land. And it's not like these "interests" are going out of their way to keep a lot of us employed.

Sin, by it's very nature, is engaging in that which is not profitable. Addiction gains nothing. Self aggrandizing gains nothing. Lieing, hording, theft, murder, all of these things set you back in the long run even if they seem to benefit you immediately.

Pollution will probably be added some point as the 8th deadly sin.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

Cleary it doesn't matter because Bush is President today.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Rotten168]

Ok this is silly. Make your case explaining your reasoning or you're simply just another slashdrone, lots of talk but nothing to back it up with.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

Exactly where have you made any point in this thread?

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Rotten168]

My implied point was that you do not know dick about how we elect the president in this country.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

Sure I do. You control the Supreme Court.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[Rotten168]

Actually no we don't. All judges were ratified by Congress. The left actually controls the Supreme Court, it's just that in this case the Gore camp was wrong. The president is elected by electors and Florida's appointed electors were ready to vote for Bush, no matter how many recounts occur.

Re:Well, There's An Obvious Explanation

[tealover]

California Supreme Court: 9 - 0 to allow recount to precede

Scalia and his Republican Gang: "Fuck the Constitution and give presidency to our buddy, Geroge"

Clearly, Scalia (and others) must be shot and killed if America is to thrive and live by rule of law again.

a group with a history of mucking in politics

[HBI]

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

After a few successful tests, i'd suggest that they were full of it then, and continue to be full of it now. Talk about a group with an axe to grind. They might as well have called themselves 'Union of Progressive Scientists'. Truth in advertising.

They are on perma-ignore.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

You are doubleplus ready for Ingsoc.

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: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:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

What?!? SDI now works!?! When did that happen???

Boy, you leave slashdot for a minute to get a little work done and jeesh ...

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Oh, and successful rigged tests!

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[rump_carrot]

Dude

Are you serious? You really think Star Wars works? What are the "successful tests" you refer to - the ones where the missile had an attached radio beacon?

Jeesh, my guess is you are either not a scientist, or if so, work on an SDI related project.

Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

No kidding. A quick perusal of their site comes up with articles on global warming, how to be an activist, the evils of SUVs, and other non-sense. Little wonder such a group would condemn the policies of the current administration.

For instance, this blurb is on their front page: "Misplaced Priorities in the 2005 Budget. President Bush's budget request for 2005 increases funding for the dysfunctional missile defense system while shortchanging programs that could ensure a future of cleaner energy and automobiles."

"Dysfunctional"? Funny, seems every test that's been conducted has shown better results than the previous one. I'm not sure how something designed to safeguard the US from attack by, oh, say, North Korea (who has persued nuclear weapons and missiles with range to California in the past), and which, while not perfect, is getting better, can be described as "dysfunctional." You'd think a bunch of Nobel laureates would understand the concept of "incremental improvement."

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[RailGunner]

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

After a few successful tests, i'd suggest that they were full of it then, and continue to be full of it now. Talk about a group with an axe to grind. They might as well have called themselves 'Union of Progressive Scientists'. Truth in advertising.

They are on perma-ignore.

They're also the same group that warned everyone of Global Cooling back in the 1970's, and warn everyone of global warming today.

Here's a question - if Dinosaurs once ruled the Earth when it was a tropical paradise, doesn't it make sense that the Earth would return to that temperature?

Chicken Little called, he wants his gimmick back from these guys.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[oogoody]

What successfull tests are those?
You mean after spending billions and billions
they can hit something in absolute ideal
conditions? Wow.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".

The SDI tests were conducted during the Reagan administration. Most of the "conclusive" evidence of WMD in Iraq was gathered under the Clinton administration. What's your point?

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)

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[hchaos]

This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84. After a few successful tests, i'd suggest that they were full of it then, and continue to be full of it now. Talk about a group with an axe to grind. They might as well have called themselves 'Union of Progressive Scientists'. Truth in advertising.

Since when have there been any successful tests? The tests done in the 80's were all rigged, and the tests done a couple years ago, despite the hype, were almost complete failures.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[SparafucileMan]

THE TESTS WERE FAKED! Jesus, doesn't anyone read the fucking news anymore?!

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Add to this that Russia sucessfully tested a balistic missile that can manuver in flight to dodge missile defense sheilds yesterday.

Even if we could make it work, it's practically trivial to defeat it. Plus you'd have to be completely insane to launch a missile at us. We are past the point of conventional warfare. It just doesn't work anymore.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

Doesn't anyone know how to read the fucking news critically anymore?!

Dateline of the linked article: July 31, 2001

Dateline of this article: November 21, 2002

This is what I meant by incremental improvements. Yes, some of the first tests were done under "ideal" circumstances. But those were designed to test the feasability of actually hitting a supersonic missile and disabling it, not tracking it, too. As we go along, the technology will mature and we'll be more able to protect not just our homeland, but our allies, too (since they're unwilling to do it themselves).

Now, answer this: the Navy has been able to knock down incoming anti-ship missiles for years now. The technology has gotten to the point where the chance of a missile impacting one of our ships is miniscule. How is that fundamentally different from shooting down an ICBM? Answer: it's not, it's only a question of scale.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[n0mad6]

The difference is that a navy ship does not get attacked by hundreds if not thousands of missles coming in from near-orbital altitudes (thus at very high speeds) that also will break up into multiple targets each not long before they strike. I guess you can say that still is a question of scale, but they are on pretty far opposite ends of that scale then.

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:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[SparafucileMan]

Wait...

a) the 2001 tests did not involve multiple warheads. Meaning that all the tests showed was that if we are guaranteed to hit an incoming missile, we can blow it up. OMG! Explosives that work! (Supersonic missiles hitting supersonic targets have been working quite well for decades now) I fail to see how this is an incrmeental improvement.

b) Our allies are willing to develop the technology, but they cannot afford it. This system will cost, what, a trillion dollars over the long-term? The whole point is that our money would be best spent elsewhere because this technology is just too expensive to develop, with minimal benefits (theres a hundred other ways to delpoy a nuke other than in ICBM form), assuming that is it's even possible, given the number of counter-measures that an attacker could use.

c) About AEGIS: The question of scale is the whole problem. An ICBM, deployed from mainland, China, Russia, Europe, etc, will be too high over the ocean for AEGIS to intercept. And if AEGIS improves, the enemy can just shoot the things higher (say, into space).

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[gowen]

They're also the same group that warned everyone of Global Cooling back in the 1970's

No, they're not. On the global cooling issue, the NAS said in 1975

"Not only are the basic scientific questions largely unanswered, but in many cases we do not yet know enough to pose the key questions."

which was an entirely true statement.

Why not read a thorough debunking of the "1970s Scientists predicted Ice Age" myth.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Rich0]

Maneuver at what stage? Most missle-defence systems are targeted at the re-entry phase. You'd need a guided warhead to dodge incoming interceptors. I imagine that accuracy would be harder to achieve in such a warhead - good enough to hit a city, but probably not good enough to hit a hardened facility (nothing can resist a direct hit from a strategic nuclear weapon - but if you're off by even 100 yards it becomes possible to protect against).

Most boost-phase strategies seem to be based on lasers - so dodging won't help there either.

I'm not saying it won't work, but if an interceptor can hit a warhead falling from space at mach 20, I find it hard to believe that the warhead could employ sufficient maneuverability to dodge the interceptor.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

The difference is that a navy ship does not get attacked by hundreds if not thousands of missles...

Actually, that's not true. Modern Aegis is programmed to track and destroy, literally, hundreds of missiles per destroyer or cruiser, thousands per battle group. The systems were originally designed to counter the Soviet threat, and one of their known tactics was to use target saturation.

You are correct, though, that ICBMs would typically travel much more quickly than anti-ship missiles. There are some other big differences, too, like the survivability of an ICBM to proximity fused weapons (Exocets are much smaller and more easily destroyed than Tridents, for example). But like I said, it's only a question of scale, and none of those hurdles are insurmountable. Like the old saying goes, if we can put a man on the moon, we can knock a missile out of the air.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[EulerX07]

No kidding. A quick perusal of their site comes up with articles on global warming, how to be an activist, the evils of SUVs, and other non-sense. Little wonder such a group would condemn the policies of the current administration.

For that first paragraph I thought that your sarcasm was perfectly dosed. Then I realized you weren't being sarcastic.

So basically you're saying that there is no global warming, SUVs are safe and get 30 mpg, and letting governments do whatever they say without standing up for any cause is the right thing to do.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

a) The 2001 tests showed that a certain class of missile could be destroyed before reaching the point when it would deploy its multiple warheads. Pretty important thing to prove.

b) If our "allies" were willing to develop their own defenses, they'd up their military spending. As long all of them combined spend less than we do on our own, we'll be stuck protecting them, too. (Personally, I don't have a problem with this. I sleep much more comfortably at night, knowing that as much as France and Germany might hollar at us, that's all they can do.)

c) Aegis isn't likely to be the system used in the long run, not for continental defense. Somehow I doubt you could mount enough missiles, with enough engine capacity, on ships to make it worthwhile. That's what places like Idaho and Nebraska are for. That said, Aegis can be seen as one of the first steps to this type of technology, and many of its abilities will likely be built into it.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[QuantumFTL]

Are you serious? You really think Star Wars works? What are the "successful tests" you refer to - the ones where the missile had an attached radio beacon?

*ahem* The primary difficulty in missile interception is that missiles tend to be small objects moving at extremely high velocities. This requires a control system that can react on millisecond timescales, with an accuracy level that's almost rediculous. The integrated commuincations/control system is by far the most difficult part, we've had missile tracking systems for decades.

Why don't you try reading this link: at Salon. If you do not believe that, I'd suggest further research. To summarize the link says that:

1. The GPS beacon did not give them any information that would not have during normal circumstances through radar etc (that part of the system wasn't built yet).
2. The kill vehicle couldn't home in on the signal, it only used externally supplied data, as in a real situation.
3. The GPS beacon was necesssary for the tracking of the results of the test. The beacon provided confirmation of the kill.

I'm really tired of people who do not understand the complexity of military interception systems downplaying the accomplishments our military has made.

Whether or not you agree that Star Wars was a good idea, it's clear that it's quite a technological achievement. The equations alone would blow most of slashdotter's minds :)

Disclaimer: i'm not a rocket scientist (yet). A few more years to go :)

Cheers,
Justin Wick

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[QuantumFTL]

Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right? Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?

First of all it was not a radar beacon, and it wasn't tracked by the interceptor, it was used to supplement the remote tracking part of the system (which was not finished yet).

In another post I linked to this article. Do some extra research if you like.

Tracking a missile is not nearly as hard as controlling an interceptor - that was the part the system did not "cheat" at.

I would suggest that you check up on the science behind these tests... I cannot believe the ignorance that is being modded up on slashdot (not that it is your fault, this was not given a lot of coverage).

Cheers,
Justin

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

Add to this that Russia sucessfully tested a balistic missile that can manuver in flight to dodge missile defense sheilds yesterday.

You mean this ballistic missile test? According to the article, the missile crashed 98 seconds after take-off. Doesn't sound so successful to me.

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:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[elefantstn]

Of course, it wasn't exactly a secret that there were GPS beacons on the targets. They weren't testing the radar system used to target incoming missiles, they were testing SDI's ability to hit moving targets. Saying this means the tests were 'faked' is like saying when I first try out an application by feeding it known good data to see how it responds I'm 'faking' my QA process.

But hey, if Salon says they were faked, then they must have been. They heard it from Doonesbury, don't ya know.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[corbettw]

So basically you're saying that there is no global warming...

The jury is still out on whether humans are causing/have caused global warming.

...SUVs are safe and get 30 mpg...

I didn't say that, I implied they're not evil.

...letting governments do whatever they say without standing up for any cause is the right thing to do.

OK, ya got me there. I don't agree with just laying down and letting the guvmint do what it wants. At the same time, I don't have much regard for "professional activists", who are driven more by their desire to change something, anything, than to achieve a particular goal. They're no better, and are in fact basically the same, as professional politicians. I have more regard for the Sarah Bradies of the world, even when I despise their politics, than the professional bandwagon-jumpers-on like the UCS. At least she targetted one thing she thought was important and kept her sights set on it, instead of using a shotgun approach like the UCS appears to have done.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".

You put those words in quotes. Poor spelling aside, who said them? Who said the words "conclusive evidence of weapons of mass destruction?"

I'm sick and fucking tired of people misrepresenting the casus belli. There was never talk of imminent threat, there was never talk of conclusive evidence. There was talk of a 12-year history of defiance of the international disarmament process, salted with compelling evidence of continued weapons development programs.

Now, let's pull out a little analogy here. Say you're a cop. You chase a suspect into a dark alley, and he reaches into his pocket and pulls something out. It's dark, you can't see that well. He points it at you.

What do you do? You shoot. That's what you do in that situation. That's what you're supposed to do. When it's all over, you look and see that he pulled out a cell phone. Okay, you shot a guy who didn't have a gun. But you know what? He knew he was being chased by a cop, he turned into a dark alley, and he made what appeared to be a threatening motion with an object pulled from his pocket. It's an unfortunate situation, but nobody can argue that the cop made the wrong decision.

Saddam knew we were serious. He could have put his hands behind his head and waited for us to cuff him, but he didn't. Instead, he reached into his pocket and started to pull something out. So we shot him.

One: there's no proof as yet that Saddam's weapons were not moved into Syria in the weeks leading up to the invasion, as has been repeatedly suggested.

Two: there's no definitive conclusion about his weapons programs yet.

Three: even if he didn't have a single chemical or biological weapon, he still had al Samoud ballistic missiles, missiles which were expressly forbidden to him under UN resolutions.

Four: even if he hadn't had any weapons at all, the US and our allies still would have been justified. We told him to put his hands up and he refused. He made a threatening motion, so we shot him. A clean bust.

Wake up and join us in the real world, okay? Let go of your catchphrases and your buzz words.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[El_Ehmenopio]

I beg to differ. The radar used for the "test" was in the completely wrong band anyway. I'm not sayign it's impossible. noone, not even the UCS is saying it's impossible. It's just not a good idea. For the less money then we spend on "star wars 2", we could prevent loose fissile material from ever reaching the hands of the people they shouldn't be in. Eventually the technology will progress anyway without us needing to rush job another expensive ABM system. Besides. A nuclear attack won't come in a missile so much as a suitcase.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Rotten168]

You're analogy is flawed. SDI could've worked, remember that they're not shooting bullets at us, they're shooting missiles. If we could shoot bullets at missiles it very well could have worked, which is where the whole railgun idea got started. You're shooting slugs at these huge lumbering ICBMs.

Even in terms of a full strike, it could still be possible to develop defense systems which target all such missiles (even thousands of them) and knock them down.

The only problem with SDI was nuclear submarine strikes would still be hard to defend against.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin, think.

Locating and tracking the target warhead is the hard part.

How do you tell what is a decoy and what isn't? It is a very hard problem.

Coast-phase warhead intercept is not a good investment of SDI money. If you want to blow money on SDI, blow it on boost phase interception/shootdown. It's much harder to build decoy rockets.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[RayBender]

But like I said, it's only a question of scale, and none of those hurdles are insurmountable.

No, not really. The problem with intercepting an ICBM is above all one of decoys. The radar and IR sensors see an incomning cloud of 100 identical shiny, round objects. One of them contains a warhead. Which do you hit? Given that it's MUCH easier to build a decoy than an interceptor, that is a game that you can't win (assuming equal resources going in - which against the Russkies is a reasonable bet).

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:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

But SDI did work. The threat of the program going ahead was part of what drove the USSR into effective bankruptcy. It may have worked even sooner if more people played along with the bluff.

I, for one, as a scientist and an American, am proud to admit that that campaign of disinformation worked at making the world a better place.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

You ought to read your own links. This Salon article quotes the pentagon itself as saying about the test

the early test results to date, including the latest flight intercept test last Saturday, do not yet justify a Bush administration decision to deploy an operational system in Alaska

and concludes

both the Pentagon's propaganda and the media coverage wrongly celebrated the July 14 shoot-down without explaining how distant from reality the conditions of that test were -- in order to advance the political aims of the White House.

Is that the best link you have?

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

[Phillup]

You are kidding, right?

There is this saying: Those who do not remember history are doomed to repeat it.

Remember the last time some jackass in charge of a superpower ignored all of his domestic problems and insisted on building his military at all costs?

I'll give you a hint... they were in Afganistan.

They also believed that they did not need allies in the international community... that they could stand alone.

Sound familiar? That is history repeating itself.

Oh, those advances... we are still driving big ass cars that get less than 30 mpg. Sucking bad air. Dying of heart disease. Can't find good drinking water. And the food we eat is killing us.

And... let's not even talk about the fact that some baseball player is getting paid more than 2500 public school teachers do... combined.

Yeah... we've come a long way.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[F34nor]

Does it matter that we gave them to him?

Does it matter that we supplied telemtry for the chemical weapons attacks on the Shites?

Does it matter that Bush swore that he was not interested in Naion building.

A better analogy might be this. Say your a dirty cop, you hand a bag of coke and a gun to a bully and say, I want you to go and shoot this other criminal and plant the coke on him. Then later you see you buddy run into a dark ally, you pursue him, shoot him and take the coke.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[F34nor]

You are correct sir.

Unfortunately... THIS WASN'T REGAN'S PLAN, you fucking AC dumbass.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Does it matter that we gave them to him?

1. Nope. No matter where he got the weapons, he was ordered to disarm and refused.

2. We didn't. The bulk of Saddam's chemical materials came from Russia, and the bulk of his nuclear research program came from France.

Does it matter that we supplied telemtry for the chemical weapons attacks on the Shites?

The chemical attacks on the Kurds (not the Shiites) were via artillery and mortar, which are unguided weapons. No "telemtry" was involved, so I don't know what you're talking about here.

Does it matter that Bush swore that he was not interested in Naion building.

Prove it.

Say your a dirty cop, you hand a bag of coke and a gun to a bully and say, I want you to go and shoot this other criminal and plant the coke on him. Then later you see you buddy run into a dark ally, you pursue him, shoot him and take the coke.

Boy. Way to be completely disconnected from reality.

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.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[QuantumFTL]

I was responding to the science in his post, not the politics.

The system is clearly not ready, however the concept has been proven - it *CAN* work. We've got the hard part figured out.

Cheers,

Justin

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[HBI]

Oh come on, you're just upset because your sacred cow, the 'united scientists' with their 'consensus' had their balloon punctured and were proven wrong. You can't really be serious that you buy this alarmist propaganda they peddle.

SDI has knocked down at least two more missiles than your 'scientists' have. Moreover, the supposed 'rigging' of the test is a matter of perspective - making contact with an item traveling at 10k mph is difficult enough. Altering the parameters to fit technological limitations I can deal with.

In regards ignorance, I read the book back at the time (in the 80's) and its basic premise was as follows:

1. The state of current technology (in 1984) is insufficient to provide adequate space-based (or land-based, assumption in the text being ABMs were dead) antimissile weapons that are immune from countermeasures.
2. Defense is always ultimately trumped by offense: therefore, nations will just build more missiles to swamp said defenses, or more actively use technologies such as MIRV or decoy warheads.

While both of the above points are correct in some sense, they are inapplicable to either the situation then or the situation today. The first was begging the question, "Well, if it isn't possible today, research and development are necessary, no?". Duh. These 'scientists' decided to try to gainsay it EVER being possible, which is a silly thing to do with technology.

The second point is true enough but a poor argument: a similar argument could be made about other weapons systems. Take a tank: well, armor piercing rounds from antitank weaponry can always be made to pierce any thickness of armor, through various technologies such as hollow charges and sabot rounds, or just making the gun bigger. Should armor be dispensed with, then?

The answer is resoundingly no, because an armorless tank is prey to small arms fire and perhaps even prosaic things like Molotov cocktails. A balance is struck between armor thickness and desired survivability and transportability. This is instructive, because the purpose of SDI was never to kill every incoming missile, and the current National Missile Defense program is not geared towards that either.

The purpose of SDI was to create a situation where a 'ragged' first strike would result. Ragged in the sense that not every missile would hit the target. This would increase the risk of said first strike, therefore strengthening deterrence. I agree with the aforementioned book inasmuch as that this would have provoked a new arms race when the system became operational. That was the point. This arms race would bankrupt the Soviet Union, which was already teetering on the edge of same. Victory in the Cold War was very much as a result of the _threat_ of SDI.

The current NMD program is intended to provide defense against a 'Scud' situation ala Saddam in 1991, or a North Korean ICBM. It is intended to knock down a small number of missiles. It would have no effect on a French or Russian or Chinese nuclear attack, except inasmuch as it would cause, once again, a 'ragged' first strike that would not assure the launching nation of achieving the expected results, thereby once again strengthening deterrence. It will not be immune to countermeasures and it can be spoofed. Who cares. It raises the barrier of entry to successfully launch a nuclear strike on the US. It wasn't intended to be a perfect shield. Moreover, the NMD is small enough that it's unlikely to provoke an arms race, as the Russians or Chinese can still flood the system with RVs that would make the quantity of destroyed vehicles immaterial.

Perhaps these 'concerned scientists' should invent a rubber band gun to fire copies of "The Fallacy of Star Wars: Why Space Weapons Can't Protect Us" at incoming ICBMs. I'm sure with all their collective smarts they'll have it working in no time, unlike the idiots in the military who think NMD or SDI had some promise. Right?

This organization, these 'concerne

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[markbark]

We outspent them

Boy, did we.... and the National Visa Card is now bursting at the seams. The latest maniac to occupy 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue (with the original cast of "Ronnie's Raiders" backing him up) is currently making the Gipper look like a piker in comparison.

Yes, we outspent the Soviets. Indeed the Soviet Union ceased to exist politically in late 1991 thanks, in part to that spending. Unfortunately, the current US debt (7x10^12) is a drag on any economic recovery real or imagined. A falling dollar along with a rise in interest rates doesn't give any potential investor any "warm cuddlies". If we continue to borrow and spend, we might as well all learn to speak Mandarin.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Duc de Montebello]

What he is saying is I disagree with most of what they say already, so I will ignore the rest.

The jury is still out on whether humans are causing/have caused global warming.

Only for scientist working for Bush and Oil companies, that is the entire point of the article.

...I didn't say that, I implied they're not (SUVs) evil.

Commonsense says in a world of limited resources, cars that consume twice as much, and are more likely to kill people might be a bad idea... But what the heck! It is a free world who believes in that "tragedy of the commons" stuff anyway.

...At the same time, I don't have much regard for "professional activists", who are driven more by their desire to change something, anything, than to achieve a particular goal. If a group of scientist disagree with a governments policies they shoudl do what? It isn't just the UCS, with their "flakey" world view that has these opinions. Half a dozen editorials in magazines like New Scientist etc. have also expressed them in the last couple of years.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[F34nor]

During the Iran Iraq war the Iraqis used chemical weapons against the shite insurgents fighting for Iran. The CIA supplied telemetry on the targeting of said weapons.

"Let me tell you what else I'm worried about: I'm worried about an opponent who uses nation building and the military in the same sentence. See, our view of the military is for our military to be properly prepared to fight and win war and, therefore, prevent war from happening in the first place."
George W. Bush Chattanooga, Tenn. Nov. 6, 2000

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Asprin]

Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment.

SDI in the '80s was a ruse designed to trick the Soviets into spending more money on defense and defense research than they could afford.

The plan was an unmitigated success because regardless of whether we could actually make SDI work, *THEY* believed we could make it work.

I'm not exactly sure why the idea is still alive, unless the DoD actually thinks we can really make it work now. If they want to fend off potential terrorist missle attacks then a scenario of a dozen or so missles is far more likely than the *thousands* we were expecting in a USSR first strike in the eighties.

The interesting thing is that some people think the same sort of ruse may be afoot with Bush and his moon and mars idea.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Jeremiah Cornelius]

Well,

How does one respond, facing that door straight to hell?

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[Anonymous Coward]

you sir, are a pretentious git.

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?

Re:I don't understand...

[nomadic]

The right wing of the Republican party tends to be government by and for the oafs.

Re:I don't understand...

[gargan]

it's called the 'Good Ol' Boy' system. come on down to the south some time and we'll show you how it works.

This just in...

[LordK2002]

Politicians distort the truth.

Nothing to see here, move along...

K

A couple more data points

[vondo]

The summary doesn't point out that that the report (which is well worth a read) takes pains not to criticize the decisions of the Bush administration, but takes them to task for distorting the scientific input into that process. For instance, you might decide (as a political matter) that reducing lead exposure to children is too costly for the benefits received. This is a political question. Removing people from a panel and censoring the science that can be presented in making that decision is an abuse of the public trust.

On their website is also a form to "sign" the statement yourself if you have an advanced degree in a scientific or technical field or are a graduate student pursuing one. Please read the report, though, before signing on.

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.

The axis of evil!!!!

[Anonymous Coward]

...uh.. ah forget it.. go to the elections

I like fark's headline best

[enrico_suave]

Fark had the best headline for this:

"The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses science. The administration points out that the Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists disagrees"

Re:I like fark's headline best

[Anonymous Coward]

Fark had the best headline for this:

Stealing Headlines for Karma I see. The union of concerned Karma Whores are very upset.

Re:I like fark's headline best

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh... for a moment and misread that. I thought the headline meant that the "Union of Concerned Scientists" really should be named "Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists".. you really don't think these "concerned" scientists aren't a part of a paid for lobby group. do you?

Re:I like fark's headline best

[El_Ehmenopio]

No. They're not. THE UCS was founded bye the same folks who brought to you "the bomb". PHYSISISTS. (Some were even directly involved with the Manhatton Project) They were concerned about its use. And of the nuclear proliferation that was occuring during the cold war. In time, they noticed their unique analytical expertise was needed, and asked for elseware.

Well, it's obvious isn't it?

[mynameis (mother ...]

Yale MBA's, and their dad's friends.
Duh!

of course he did

[happyfrogcow]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

Yes it's biased. Biased towards scientific truth instead of political motives (though by creating the document in the frist place, the scientists are expressing some political motives).

And yes he should be troubled. Being a science adviser and having 20 highly acclaimed scientists say you are wrong makes you look like bad.

that being said, time to go RTFA and see where i'm wrong.

Re:of course he did

[Anonymous Coward]

I wouldn't trust UCS any further than I could pitch the lot of them one handed into a high wind while whistling The Sweater Song and trying to pacify an angry goat. UCS's past actions speak well enough - back in the day, when the anti-nuclear movements were all the rage, UCS would bring up 'proof' that nuclear power was dangerous through emission of low level radiation. What UCS was really doing was clinging to theories that had been consistently disproven - many times over, actually. Try reading "A Scientist's Case For Nuclear Power" by Bernard L Cohen - a very cohesive book in which almost every argument UCS ever brought to the table is thoroughly thrashed - and it's 'proof' too.

In any case, I wouldn't trust UCS to be "biased towards scientific proof" in the slightest.

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: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:of course he did

[happyfrogcow]

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

I didn't say that at all. I said it makes him look bad. And if he in turn makes Bush look bad, who do you think will be the first to get the boot? Bush's science adviser. That is troubling for the science adviser, i imagine. He spun it to make it sound like the scientists findings were less than credible in order to save some face and his job. I know, I'm assuming a lot, but it's a hard time to trust politicians these days. And you're saying "don't trust the scientists either". I guess one has to make choices of who to trust.

You really mean that these scientists are biased towards their own scientific truth

No, I really mean that there may be political motives behind the statement released by the scientists, but hopefully (and i can only hope really) that their scientific process was valid, honest, and truthfull. Maybe you are saying that science doesn't strive for pure truth anymore, in which case science is no longer science (which from what I gather is what the scientists are saying about the state of the current administrations dealing with science).

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:of course he did

[idsofmarch]

Of course this is not the mention the religious and political groups that also said Galileo, Copernicus were wrong. Oh wait, dissenting views are marginalized, and disenters demonized. It cuts both ways, the point is to look at the science and not personal scientific truth nor political agendas. Just because Galileo managed to be right doesn't mean that Lomberg or anyone else is right, its a neat little tautology you got there though.

The real point

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not that the facts are sometimes not distorted, it's that the truth isn't sometimes wrong and many times it isn't even incorrect.

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.

Re:big biz

[Anonymous Coward]

anything he does is for that reason or something else. Your wisdom astounds me!

Re:big biz

[Mycroft_514]

Global warming is a myth. If you check the long running facts, you will find out that the "global warming" activists have been distorting the data for quite some time. This is just a cyclical climate variation that has been seen in the past.

The whole global warming is done with statistics.

"There are lies, damn lies and statistics."

Re:big biz

[El_Ehmenopio]

Oh. I suppose you have a PHD in math to back that up?

Re:big biz

[Felix Rodriguez]

What part of global warming is a myth?

The fact that the world is actually warming? There's clear evidence of that. If you don't see it, then I don't know what to tell you.

The real question is whether it is human caused or cyclical climate change. But note that this does not make global warming itself a myth.

Also in my mind it makes no difference. If scientist told us we were headed towards a new ice age, I would try to do as much as I can to stop that, regardless on whether or not the ice age is human or naturally induced!

Why don't you tell some of the residents of the sinking islands in the pacific that they have nothing to worry about, because this is just a natural cyclical variation?

Your dealing with a administration...

[Ummon_i]

who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering.

They are luddites plain and simple.

They came out against the a health study a couple of weeks ago. The study said that americans or too fat and should eat less fat and more veggies. Real contravercial stuff..

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Mr. Rogers has been following me for the past three weeks. I have yet to see him, but whenever I turn my head in the right direction, I can feel his presence. His footsteps are there. He also spoke once. His voice was soft and sounded like the creaking of branches in a light breeze. The man said he means no harm and Jesus loves me. I know that's not the truth. That phrase was his secret keyword meaning he was about to strike, so I ran as fast as I could to the corner convenience store and called the police and an officer picked me up and kept me safe for a day. You can tell when they are one of them when they try to brain wash you with false saviors. Only I hold the key to eternity, because I, unlike them, have already found internal harmony. I can feel a majestic light scintillating through my veins twining away from the cold darkness of the one who follows me. Rogers has with him a wooden rod to bludgeon me to death. I know that he will only get me when I am alone, so I ensure there's always someone around me who's awake all of the time, like my friend Peter Jennings who is standing behind me right now holding an open butterfly knife guarding me. Rogers passionately hates Gorbachev and spoke about the leader's car bomb plans on every show. Rogers knows I once smoked weed with Gorbachev and chatted with him about the President's dog Spot who was formerly a spy for the KGB. At the time, I didn't know he was a spy, but there was something about the way the dog looked at me when I saw his photo in the newspaper. His expression unraveled me at the time. Now I know why. The CIA had recruited Mr. Rogers and shared intelligence with him. That's why he knows where I live. That's why I need your help in stopping him. Please kill him before he kills me. Because of his presence within the CIA, he has bionic skin making it impossible to kill him with a knife or gun. You can only stun him with those items but never kill him. His only weakness is from glue. It sticks to the outside of his soul and sufficates the body he possesses, essentially cutting his inner being from the outside world. It does not matter the type of glue. Coat his body with it while chanting "Within this sphere I will set the hounds free". Once the glue sinks into his inner being he will never walk on earth ever again. Watch out for the ghost of Zeus that may eminate from his body just before death to avoid electricution. If you fail he will kill you and absorb your life force making him a threat to the entire planet. I beg of you. Please help rid the world of him!

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Hey Mr. Science where did you go to school?

'a administration'?
'Contravercial'?
'luddites'? (capitalize proper nouns please)
'then' instead of 'than'?

WOW! Everyone listen to this man! He's very smart! Mod up +5 GENIUS!

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

You forgot, 'the a' study, 'or too fat', 'americans', among others.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

And the other side thinks that the murder of innocent humans is OK. HTF is that different?

Perhaps you should learn to spell correctly before you insult others...

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[pla]

WOW! Everyone listen to this man! He's very smart! Mod up +5 GENIUS!

Cool...

I didn't know Dubbya himself read Slashdot!

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder when exactly it changed from the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Law of Evolution"...

If I can tolerate you to have the Theory of Evolution, then you should be kind enought to tolerate my Theory of Creationism.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

The difference being that the theory of evolution is based on the scientific method, and the story of creationism is just that, a story. A theory is something that can be tested, or evidence may support, or it's not science at all. Next time you get sick, do us all a favor and pray to get better instead of seeing a doctor. Maybe we can promote science buy attrition.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[TamMan2000]

And the other side thinks that the murder of innocent humans is OK. HTF is that different?

Nope, it was the Bush administration that wanted to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens.

Oh, you were talking about abortions... For the record, there are several scientists who believe the theory of evolution, and appose the murder of the unborn.

Also, when most of the replies to a comment are about bad spelling, it just makes it look like those who dissagree with the comment can't find any logical or factualy way to refute the comment; it weakens your side's argument...

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[strike2867]

I didn't know Dubbya himself read Slashdot!

He can read? No way.

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:Your dealing with a administration...

[nphinit]

...and i am dealing with a poster, who couldn't spell to SAV HIZ LIEF!

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

the theory of evolution is based on the scientific method

Up to a point. Beyond that point, it's just a story.

See, it goes like this. Imagine you've got ten ants. Five of those ants can smell; the other five can't. The five who can smell are better at finding food than the other five. So they get to have more little baby ants than the others. Which means in the next generation, a higher proportion of ants will be able to smell.

That's natural selection. The critters that are better adapted to deal with the challenges of their environment will be more successful at passing on those adaptations to their offspring.

This process has been observed in nature. It's not really in doubt.

But the theory of evolution says that, given enough time, ants evolve into birds. (Not exactly, but you get the idea.) We've never seen anything like that. We've never seen a species evolve into another species through natural selection.

So, you see, evolution is just a theory. It's an idea about what might have happened in the past to explain the diversity of life around us.

Creationism is another theory.

If you think evolution is somehow inherently more valid than creationism, your biases are showing. Believe what you want, but at least be honest about it.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Ummon_i]

In spite of you being a grammar nazi, I deserved that. :)

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:Your dealing with a administration...

[Ummon_i]

Gravity is only a therory, as well, should we teach some alternate on in school our public schools as well?

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[jimmy_dean]

Wow, nice troll. Obviously somebody is a biased athiest.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[love2hateMS]

MY GOD PEOPLE. You are criticizing the Bush Administration for being stupid and you can't even spell the words "controversial" or "doctering." "Your" in the context of your subject line should be "You're", which is a contraction for "You are."
"Administration" beings with a vowel, and should therefore be preceded with the antecedent "an" not "a."

If you are going to throw intellectual stones, make sure your brain isn't living in a glass skull.

I love Slashdot. A bunch of illiterate, reactionary, left-wing nutcases hurling insults at people smarter and more successful than they are.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Gravity is only a therory, as well, should we teach some alternate on in school our public schools as well?

Now that you mention it, yeah!

The fact that bodies are attracted to each other is observable everywhere. But why, and what mathematical model can we use to describe this behavior?

In public high schools, we teach Newton's theory of gravity: that bodies are attracted to each other with a force proportionate to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the distance between them, using a sort of cosmological fudge factor.

Problem is, Newton's model is demonstrably untrue. It fails to accurate predict the orbit of Mercury, for instance.

So we have two competing models of gravity, both of which seek to explain what we see around is: general relativity and quantum gravity.

We don't teach either of those in public high schools, because they're too complex and require too much background. But we teach them both in public universities.

We teach them both.

I know you were trying to be funny. Turns out you accidentally stumbled upon a great truth.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

A bunch of illiterate, reactionary, left-wing nutcases hurling insults at people smarter and more successful than they are.

I think you mean "smartor" there, pal.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering

I guess you think that "valid science" is some random explosion billions of years ago to create the earth, followed by a few billion random genetic mutations to create life. Yeah, that sounds like some valid, fact-based scientific theory...

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[cardshark2001]

MY GOD PEOPLE. You are criticizing the Bush Administration for being stupid and you can't even spell the words "controversial" or "doctering." "Your" in the context of your subject line should be "You're", which is a contraction for "You are." "Administration" beings with a vowel, and should therefore be preceded with the antecedent "an" not "a." If you are going to throw intellectual stones, make sure your brain isn't living in a glass skull. I love Slashdot. A bunch of illiterate, reactionary, left-wing nutcases hurling insults at people smarter and more successful than they are.

It's all part of the vast right-wing conspiracy. That guy wasn't really a lefty, he just posted some lefty crap using very bad grammar and spelling to get people to think that leftys are stupid. It's an ingenius plot, and I have to give him credit for it.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

asshat.

Newton's theory is accurate up to a point - the minor precession in the orbit of Mercury is neither here nor there compared to the total absence of any evidence for a Creator (or, indeed, the total lack of any need for a Creator - pace William of Occam).

Your theory is silly, your belief system sillier, being based in a muddled mythology of the Middle East that was only written down about the same time as Homer.

You might as well live your life according to the Iliad, you bloody fool.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[praedor]

Good crap, what a bunch of cowardly anonymous unscientific minds on this one!

Two things, deal with them: There is the THEORY of evolution that addresses the HOW (not the whether/if). Then there is the FACT of evolution. That is it. There is FACT (evolution DOES occur, both micro and macro (there's no difference but one of degree). This is uncontested in the REAL world (where scientists and the scientifically literate dwell). Then there is the THEORY about how it occurs: punctuated equilibrium, simple gradualism, neodarwinism.

Another thing to deal with as reality. A scientific THEORY is NOT a minor thing. It is just short of a LAW. There's atomic THEORY, for instance. Do you have a problem with that? There's quantum THEORY. Problem with that? Actually, the theory aspect of evolution studies is JUST as well backed up and solid as is atomic theory.

Toss your bible away, it is not a factual, blow-by-blow account of much of anything. It is loaded with metaphor, parable, and cultural history as seen through the colored glasses of many different religious customs and social customs. It is NOT a cookbook. Deal with it.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Ummon_i]

Aside from my atrocious spelling/grammar, the point is this. Its irrelevant if you believe the world was created by the Christian/Judaic God or you if you believe that the world was created by the dream of a giant turtle. They are beliefs, based upon religious doctrine, and not on scientific methodology.

I am not saying any religious belief is more or less valid then the other. I am saying they belong in our churches and our religious congregations. They do not belong challenging teaching valid scientific methods.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, it was the Bush administration that wanted to kill thousands of Iraqi citizens.

No, it was Saddam Hussein that wanted to (and did) kill hundreds of thousands of Iraqi citizens. Because of George Bush that is no longer happening. The Iraqi's are happy about this- why aren't you?

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

asshat

Great argument.

Newton's theory is accurate up to a point

No, it's wrong at all levels. It's just that the degree to which it's wrong is sometimes too small to notice.

the total absence of any evidence for a Creator

Look around you. The universe exists. Ergo, it must have come into existence. Your theories for explaining how are no better than mine. And your completely fail to answer why.

Your theory is silly, your belief system sillier, being based in a muddled mythology of the Middle East that was only written down about the same time as Homer.

Nope, sorry. My system is just as valid as yours. Moreso, in fact, because mine has a deeper tradition. Yours is a flash in the pan by comparison.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[F34nor]

Are they really an atheist? Why does believing in god have ANYTHING to do with the Bible. Esp. when the Bible as we know it was a political creation of a Roman emperor?

Bible != God

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Bull freaking crap. Without resorting to retarded sounding assertions about the billions of random, spontanious mutations that just happened to give us living, walking, breathing, seeing, feeling human beings, evolution does not explain much at all.

The only reason a theory as far fetched as evolution has survived as long as it has is because the "scientific" minds like you have a pathological need to feel important, and it makes them feel less important to recognize a higher divine power in the universe.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[F34nor]

Bush may not be stupid but he picks his nose on national TV, can't speak clearly, is too illiterate to read the newspaper, and lets Karl Rove make political policy decisions for him, invites attacks on US troops while they are in combat, goes AWOL, can't get on a Seaway without breaking it, asked the president of Brazil if "they have black people in your country?", lied in his acceptance speech about the Army's readiness, called off an investigation into Bin Laden before 9/11, and best of all thinks we won't notice it when he sticks a cucumber in his flight suit.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah they're pleased as punch. All those bombings and attacks on our troops are just a substitute for throwing flowers at our troops feet...

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the Unified Theory is already accepted in some scientific circles, and it can be thought of as an alternate to the theory of gravity.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Phillup]

But... he killed them because the other George Bush let him.

And gave him the weapons.

Bet that never comes out at "the trial".

Bet they never get that accomplice to the crimes.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[praedor]

There is no divine power anywhere. I'm content with that fact of reality. You should get square with it too...or show me the indisputable proof.

I study mutation for a living. You know absolutely nothing and have nothing worthwhile to say about it. Go back to your cave.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean "doctoring", don't you? Or was that just a typo of yours? ;)

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if you're trolling, but I'll assume you're not.

But the theory of evolution says that, given enough time, ants evolve into birds. (Not exactly, but you get the idea.) We've never seen anything like that. We've never seen a species evolve into another species through natural selection.

Give that this takes tens of thousands or even millions of years to happen, and human beings have only been around at most for 200.000 years (with only a few thousand years of recorded history) this isn't so surprising.

You should look as closely at the argument of evolutionary scientists as you do at those of creationists. Most creationist arguments I've seen attack older, no longer held, views of evolutionary scientists, and therefore are very bogus, even though they sound very convincing.

Take for example, the comparison between this account of fossil horse records and this criticism of fossil horse records. Note how the criticism only attacks the earliest held views, and handily dismisses any advances in knowledge made since then. I know, I know, anecdotal, like always, but I find this is an often reoccurring phenomenon among creationist arguments.

We're never going to have a perfect fossil record. Therefore we're never going to be able to prove evolution from the origins of life to human beings. This is a fact. However, it's just too big of a leap for a sane person to claim all the species we DO have in the fossil record not only share no evolutionary history, but all were created by God (even though they all appear in defined periods, and no species is available throughout the entire fossil record history) and most just died off due to natural selection.

Anyway, do a google search on "evidence evolution" 3.6 million results. Have fun reading. This seems a good resource.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, Mr Fancy Pants scientist that studies mutation for a living- how do you explain the extremely short amount of time in the fossil record where animals suddenly developed eyesight? Random chance? Ok fine. How about spinal chords? How about the fact that our planet is just the perfect distance from the sun so we can have water in liquid form? Or that our buttholes are far away from our noses?

It seriously amazes me that people like you cannot even admit that there is a chance that God exists, but you latch on to theories that are based on nothing more an incredibly unlikely "chance" sequence of events. Indisputable proof? Pffft. You have just as much proof as I do.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Most creationist arguments I've seen attack older, no longer held, views of evolutionary scientists, and therefore are very bogus, even though they sound very convincing.

Take for example, the comparison...

This, in case you're wondering, is a textbook example of a straw-man argument. I couldn't give two shits about fossil horse records, and neither could you.

However, it's just too big of a leap for a sane person to claim all the species we DO have in the fossil record not only share no evolutionary history, but all were created by God...

Right. People who believe in God are insane.

Fucking elitists.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

But... he killed them because the other George Bush let him.

Bull crap. First of all, Saddam was in power for 10 years before Bush was elected. And during the 80's, the US signed 5 UN security council resolutions condemning Iraq for their actions. And then Bush organized and led a coalition to keep Iraq from illegally expanding their borders into Kuwait. I suppose next you are going to blame Bush for all of the bank robberies or drive by shootings in LA, because he didn't stop that from happening too.

And gave him the weapons.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the weapons Saddam used during the 80's were from either Japan or Germany, but they weren't from the US.

Bet that never comes out at "the trial".

I bet uneducated retards like you will whine either way.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Phillup]

First of all, Saddam was in power for 10 years before Bush was elected.

Reagan... Bush... Bush... it is all the same people in the background, and puppets in the foreground.

According to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the weapons Saddam used during the 80's were from either Japan or Germany, but they weren't from the US.

How do you suppose they bought those weapons?

Initially, Iraq advanced far into Iranian territory, but was driven back within months. By mid-1982, Iraq was on the defensive against Iranian human-wave attacks. The U.S., having decided that an Iranian victory would not serve its interests, began supporting Iraq: measures already underway to upgrade U.S.-Iraq relations were accelerated, high-level officials exchanged visits, and in February 1982 the State Department removed Iraq from its list of states supporting international terrorism. (It had been included several years earlier because of ties with several Palestinian nationalist groups, not Islamicists sharing the worldview of al-Qaeda. Activism by Iraq's main Shiite Islamicist opposition group, al-Dawa, was a major factor precipitating the war -- stirred by Iran's Islamic revolution, its endeavors included the attempted assassination of Iraqi Foreign Minister Tariq Aziz.)

Prolonging the war was phenomenally expensive. Iraq received massive external financial support from the Gulf states, and assistance through loan programs from the U.S. The White House and State Department pressured the Export-Import Bank to provide Iraq with financing, to enhance its credit standing and enable it to obtain loans from other international financial institutions. The U.S. Agriculture Department provided taxpayer-guaranteed loans for purchases of American commodities, to the satisfaction of U.S. grain exporters.

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB82/

Here is the most telling part:

Following further high-level policy review, Ronald Reagan issued National Security Decision Directive (NSDD) 114, dated November 26, 1983, concerned specifically with U.S. policy toward the Iran-Iraq war. The directive reflects the administration's priorities: it calls for heightened regional military cooperation to defend oil facilities, and measures to improve U.S. military capabilities in the Persian Gulf, and directs the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff to take appropriate measures to respond to tensions in the area. It states, "Because of the real and psychological impact of a curtailment in the flow of oil from the Persian Gulf on the international economic system, we must assure our readiness to deal promptly with actions aimed at disrupting that traffic." It does not mention chemical weapons [Document 26].

Way back in the very beginning of Reagan's term they were shaping the policy of killing anyone (or letting anyone die) so that we can have oil.

And, look at the people involved (the secretaries of state and defense and the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff) and see if they still have their finger in the pie.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

How do you suppose they bought those weapons?

Yes- we thought that Iraq was not as bad as Iran. I mean, Iran just had a messy revolution and took a bunch of us hostage. Its understandable to try to befreind their neighbor who also happens to hate Iran. You know what they say- hindsight is 20/20.

Way back in the very beginning of Reagan's term they were shaping the policy of killing anyone (or letting anyone die) so that we can have oil.

Good. A lot of our citizens would die if our oil supply was threatened. That isn't George Bush's or Ronald Reagan's or Donald Rumsfeld's fault- thats a fact of life brought about by the past 150 years of the development of this country. They would be remiss in their duties if they ignored this.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Phillup]

A lot of our citizens would die if our oil supply was threatened.

Why?

Too lazy to walk to work?

Too stupid to develop an alternative energy source?

Oh my, What will you do?

In the 1950s, oil producers discovered about fifty barrels of oil for every barrel invested in drilling and pumping. Today, the figure is only about five for one. Sometime around 2005, that figure will become one for one. In other words, even if the price of oil reaches $500 a barrel, it wouldn't make energy sense to look for new oil in the United States after 2005 because it would consume more energy than it would recover.

The increasing energy cost of oil sets up a positive feedback loop: since oil is used directly or indirectly in everything, as the energy costs of oil increase, the energy costs of everything else increase too -- including other forms of energy. For example, oil provides about 50% of the fuel used in coal extraction.[7]

Immutable energy laws tell us that a growing economy must eventually consume more energy than it can buy. When America spends more-than-one unit of energy to produce enough goods and services to buy one unit of energy, it will be physically impossible to cover the overhead (money is irrelevant). At that point, America's economic machine is "out of gas". Forever!

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[kir]

That was the funniest batch of truth of read in a while. Congrats.

To bad you'll be either modded down or ignored.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[JewFish]

Bible != God

I am tired of people using conditional operators incorrectly. !=, == are tests, they don't imply anything by themselves.
From a Christian perspective (the majority religion here on Spaceship Earth)...

(Bible != God) => false

John 1:1 also mentions something about and the Word was God.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Quoting from the paranoid rant that you linked to, oil is used directly or indirectly in everything. Take plastics, for example. Can you imagine what a hospital would do without plastic? Now imagine it without electricity that needs oil to be produced. How about our (gulp) military? Do we really want our Air Force grounded when Fidel decides to get bold because they don't have enough fuel? How about heating oil? This winter has been brutal in the north east- I'm sure old people there would love to lose their homes heating source!

And BTW, as authoritative as "dieoff.org" looks on fossile fuels, they are only spewing out the same kind of nonsense that has been constantly debunked for 50 years. We are nowhere near an oil shortage. In fact, we are not even sure where oil comes from. Simple economics will take care of it if/when we do have a shortage.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

It's "too bad," moron.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple economics will take care of it if/when we do have a shortage.

Oh please. We already depend on hostile nations for the oil. Waiting for economics to take care of the problem is the most painful option. That's like telling a person who knows that his job will likely become irrelevant to wait until it happens before learning a new trade.

Re: Your dealing with a administration...

[Black Parrot]

> Ok, Mr Fancy Pants scientist that studies mutation for a living- how do you explain the extremely short amount of time in the fossil record where animals suddenly developed eyesight? Random chance? Ok fine. How about spinal chords? How about the fact that our planet is just the perfect distance from the sun so we can have water in liquid form? Or that our buttholes are far away from our noses?

Forgive my crude example, but how come buttholes also fit penises so well, and are so conveniently located for those who want to test the fit?

If you took your own style of argument seriously, you'd have to conclude that homosexuality exists because your god deliberately made the arrangements for it.

> It seriously amazes me that people like you cannot even admit that there is a chance that God exists

Most of us actually can. Where creationists go wrong is that they go on to make additional claims that are demonstrably false.

> but you latch on to theories that are based on nothing more an incredibly unlikely "chance" sequence of events. Indisputable proof? Pffft. You have just as much proof as I do.

You don't know much about the subject matter, do you.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Black Parrot]

> > Newton's theory is accurate up to a point

> No, it's wrong at all levels. It's just that the degree to which it's wrong is sometimes too small to notice.

Now rewind and reconsider the observation that evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain it. As with gravity, a greater or lesser error in the theory is not going to make the fact go away.

> > the total absence of any evidence for a Creator

> Look around you. The universe exists. Ergo, it must have come into existence.

Unless of course it has always existed...

BTW, if you took your own argument seriously you would also conclude that the Creator must have a creator, that the creator' must have a creator'', etc. It follows by well-founded induction that "it's creators all the way up".

> Your theories for explaining how are no better than mine.

Not so. Your "theory" doesn't actually explain anything. Saying "a creator did it" is no different from saying "a zingflurf did it", other than the choice of noun you use to describe a vaguely conceived, unconstrained process.

> > Your theory is silly, your belief system sillier, being based in a muddled mythology of the Middle East that was only written down about the same time as Homer.

> Nope, sorry. My system is just as valid as yours. Moreso, in fact, because mine has a deeper tradition. Yours is a flash in the pan by comparison.

That's not obviously true. But no matter: your argument is idiotic regardless of the factuality of the claims you base it on. If you claim "the older the better", then you must acknowledge that the Sumerian tradition trumps the Hebrew tradition, that Caveman traditon trumps the Sumerian, etc., all the way back to the first drooling idiot excuse for a human's first idiotic thought about how the world works.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Black Parrot]

> But the theory of evolution says that, given enough time, ants evolve into birds. (Not exactly, but you get the idea.)

No, it's not the theory of evolution that tells us that X evolved into Y, it's the fact of evolution. The theory is an attempt to account for the known facts.

What creationists really dispute is the fact of evolution. Hence their incessant attempts to explain away everything we know about the history of life on earth.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Black Parrot]

> I wonder when exactly it changed from the "Theory of Evolution" to the "Law of Evolution"...

There is no "Law of Evolution". We have the fact of evolution, i.e. the biological history of the earth, and the theory of evolution, which is our best attempt so far at explaining the fact.

(Actually you could probably come up with a First Law of Evolution, something along the lines of "a system of imperfect self-replicators will evolve". But that doesn't seem to be the sort of thing you are talking about.)

> If I can tolerate you to have the Theory of Evolution, then you should be kind enought to tolerate my Theory of Creationism.

OK, I tolerate it. But if you want to flash it in public, don't be offended if people point out how deficient it is.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain it

Wow, you just haven't been paying attention. Evolution is not a fact. The diversity of life is a fact. Evolution attempts to explain how diverse species could have arisen from a common ancestor.

Unless of course it has always existed...

The second law of thermodynamics and Hubble's observations tell us that this cannot possibly be true. If the universe has existed for infinite time in a static state, its temperature would be much higher than it is. If it has existed for infinite time in an expanding state, its temperature would be much lower than it is. The only conclusion that fits the facts is that the universe has existed in an expanding state for finite time... implying a beginning.

The universe began.

the Creator must have a creator

Sorry, no. There's physical evidence that tells us the universe must have had a beginning, but there's no evidence to contradict a divine, infinite creator.

Your "theory" doesn't actually explain anything.

Of course it does. What you really mean to say is that it doesn't explain anything to your satisfaction, which I could say of your theory in equal measure. So we cancel each other out on that one.

all the way back to the first drooling idiot excuse for a human's first idiotic thought about how the world works

See what I'm talking about? You're never going to get anywhere as long as you continue mocking the beliefs of people who have faith, and comparing them to drooling idiots.

You're just a bigot, plain and simple.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

No, it's not the theory of evolution that tells us that X evolved into Y, it's the fact of evolution.

The fact is that we live in a world that's filled with diverse species. The theory is that those species evolved from a common ancestor.

This isn't really that complex.

Hence their incessant attempts to explain away everything we know about the history of life on earth.

Apparently, you think we know a hell of a lot more than we actually know, if you think that evolution is a proven fact. It ain't, man.

(Besides, I know you're just trolling me, anyway. I've read your posting history. Your trolling ways are well known.)

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, I promise I will stop using conditional opperators incorrectly.

In return can you explain why the Bible as known by Americans has anything to do with G-d, God, or even god? It was a politcal creation used to bind the Roman state to the Christian sect that was making trouble for them. The books chosen to make up the cannon were chosen by a Roman who wasn't a Christian. The books found in the Gnostic Gospels, the Nag Hammadi Books and the Dead Sea Scrolls combined with the recent find of Jame's coffin indicate the Bible is missing a great deal. Why should we trust it, esp when it has lead to genocide, heresy, and murder? Now don' think I am knocking the big JC. I am just saying that if he was alive today I think he'd start out by kicking a lot of so called Christians the hell of of the temple.

If you want to understand the love of Jesus study Buddhism. It takes you to the same place but does track the shit of two thousand years of hate in with it.

P.S. Christianity is not a majority it's only the largest single percentage. Majority is 50% and above.

Re: Your dealing with a administration...

[Black Parrot]

> > evolution is a fact and the theory of evolution is an attempt to explain it

> Wow, you just haven't been paying attention. Evolution is not a fact. The diversity of life is a fact.

The fact that the set of species populating the earth has changed enormously over the past 3+ billion years is, well, a fact. Some exist now that didn't exist earlier. Some existed earlier that do not exist now. The theory of evolution is an attempt to explain those kinds of facts.

> > Unless of course [the universe] has always existed...

> The second law of thermodynamics and Hubble's observations tell us that this cannot possibly be true. If the universe has existed for infinite time in a static state, its temperature would be much higher than it is. If it has existed for infinite time in an expanding state, its temperature would be much lower than it is. The only conclusion that fits the facts is that the universe has existed in an expanding state for finite time... implying a beginning.

How do you know some supernatural parasite isn't siphoning off entropy for its upkeep?

Why wouldn't an eternally old Creator have already reached maximum entropy?

I don't believe the universe is infinitely old, but anyone who accepts the handwaving arguments of creationism must accept similar arguments for an eternal universe. The Law of Cake says you can't both have and eat it.

> > the Creator must have a creator

> Sorry, no. There's physical evidence that tells us the universe must have had a beginning, but there's no evidence to contradict a divine, infinite creator.

Sorry, but I was only applying the logic invoked in the post I was replying to.

> > Your "theory" doesn't actually explain anything.

> Of course it does. What you really mean to say is that it doesn't explain anything to your satisfaction

No, I meant it very literally: invoking an unknown agency of unknown capabilities working toward unknown goals by unknown means for unknown motives is not an explanation, period. It's just a way of saying "something made it happen, and I choose to call that something 'God'".

> > all the way back to the first drooling idiot excuse for a human's first idiotic thought about how the world works

> See what I'm talking about? You're never going to get anywhere as long as you continue mocking the beliefs of people who have faith, and comparing them to drooling idiots.

Anyone who read for comprehension would have noticed that I was talking about some hypothetical barely-intelligent precursor of the "cave men", not the creationists who inhabit the internet.

> You're just a bigot, plain and simple.

You can't make a case for your views, plain and simple.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[jimmy_dean]

Yeah, nice. Obviously you've studied the history of the Bible. Not even close...those who don't even believe in Christianity who teach Bible classes at state universities would disagree with you completely about the Bible's origin. The Bible is associated with Christianity because that's what it describes and who physically wrote the first words down. And Jesus would never advocate Buddhism...just read what he had to say in the Bible...he said there is only one way to God and it's through him only. To say otherwise is to place false words in the mouth of Jesus.

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[JewFish]

thanks for giving me some food for thought, and correcting my missusage of "majority".

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[BandwidthHog]

Right. People who believe in God are insane.

Well, yeah. Duh.

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:industry influence

[JohnnyCannuk]

Yeah, you know Smith and Wesson, Glauk, Remmington...they got a lot of pull with the Texas cowboy types in Washington these days...

Re:industry influence

[Jaysyn]

Well, some big multi-national conglomerate has to strip-mine the stuff from somewhere.

Jaysyn

Funny name

[tryfan]

> Bush's science adviser, John Marburger,

Marburger? Sounds like some kind of Ebolan to me....

Re:Funny name

[JohnnyCannuk]

Hey, I think it's funny, but then I know what Marburg and Ebola are....:)

Hint to others: Read Outbreak

Union of Concerned Scientists?

[Unnngh!]

Wow, they sound formidable. Undoubtedly, they will be able to sway the administration, who only has a few trillion dollars of industry capital supporting the status quo. Good thing they are concerned, not just mildly interested;)

Re:Union of Concerned Scientists?

[pyros]

no doubt they knocked over a dustbin in Shatsbury last weekend. Those hooligans!

The name...

[FrostedWheat]

The Union of Concerned Scientists

Oh c'mon, is that the best they could do? How about something totally original like... 'The League of Extraordinary Scientists' or the 'Fellowship of the Scientists'. That kind of thing!

Re:The name...

[DirtyJ]

How about the "We're Smarter Than You, so Listen to Our Advice, Dumbass" club.

Re:The name...

[ShortedOut]

Or even The Scientists, United and Concerned
aka The SUC

Re:The name...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Nah, it's something Pythonesque.

We, the Union of Concerned Scientists..
Ah, excuse me?
Yes, you in the back?
I wouldn't say I'm concerned.
No?
Ah, no.
Are you a scientist?
Yes.
But not concerned.
No.
Well, what are you, then?
Ah, interested.
Interested?
Yes. I'm not quite concerned about this, but I am interested.
Is anybody else here 'interested?'
(silence)
Right. We the Union of Concerned, and Interested Scientists...

And so on.

Re:The name...

[dasmegabyte]

Better than their original title...the Federated Union of Concerned Kindred Scientests...

Re:The name...

[cheezitmike]

Or the Council of Learned Citizens.

Re:The name...

[Anonymous Coward]

What's wrong with the name? It's a very well-respected group dating back to Einstein and the Manhatten Project. Anyone in science would recognize the name instantly.

Re:The name...

[zx75]

Well, isn't what the whole issue is about? They're scientists, not spin doctors...

Re:The name...

[Lars T.]

And "The Bush Administration" sounds better?

Re:The name...

[ms1234]

Soon they'll throw science into Mount Doom?

Re:The name...

[FrostedWheat]

the "We're Smarter Than You, so Listen to Our Advice, Dumbass" club

You mean Slashdot?

(Kidding!)

Re:The name...

[Jaysyn]

Now *that* would be something good on a resume, I'd bet they'd interview you just to find out what the hell it was.

Jaysyn

Of course it's bias to them

[aztektum]

It's a judgement by a group of scientists who feel that the current administration is screwing with things for their own gain.

Oh wait that would make the Bush Administration bias too, whatever shall we do?

Welcome to politics.

Bush

[FifteenSquids]

GW Bush is a corporate whore and his policies will always reflect that. Screw eveything around him and twist the truth to benefit his and his good ol' boy buddy's wallets every time no matter what the consequences.

Typical response

[clenhart]

I am tired of the current administration's tactic of attacking legitimate concerns with "they're political!".

Re:Typical response

[Anonymous Coward]

The Nobel Committee is not political? They are awarded Jimmy Carter with the Nobel Peace Prize for the North Korea Nuclear Treaty. We all know how effective that treaty was. They did to embarrass Bush.

Re:Typical response

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Yep. Just like it's okay to post doctored photos of John Kerry with Jane Fonda*, but questioning Bush's desertion from the National Guard is somehow inappropriate, and perhaps unpatriotic, and an insult to all our brave Guardsmen currently fighting in Iraq, and -- oooh, shiny!

This is a pet peeve of mine, because I'm a vet (fought in Daddy Bush's war) and if there is one thing I hate, it's chickenhawks wrapping themselves in the flag.

* Even if he did want to hang out with her, remember that the guy fought heroically in Vietnam, and none of his critics ever came close.

Re:Typical response

[Syberghost]

Yep. Just like it's okay to post doctored photos of John Kerry with Jane Fonda*, but questioning Bush's desertion from the National Guard is somehow inappropriate, and perhaps unpatriotic, and an insult to all our brave Guardsmen currently fighting in Iraq, and -- oooh, shiny!

No, saying Bush deserted the National Guard is all of those things, plus one more; easily disproven.

Questioning the supposed desertion is called "healthy skepticism".

Re:Typical response

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Please, oh please, "easily" prove to me that Bush completed his term of service.

If scientists are so smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the hell do other people find themselves in positions of authority? If scientists would put their money where their mouth is, and take some responsibility instad of pointing fingers and doing the I-told-you-so dance, they could be the ones making the policy. But NO. They DON'T bother to get successful. They are happy to work for someone else. And when things don't go their way? Finger pointing and I-told-you-so.

If you don't like who is in authority, take them OUT. At the point of a gun if necessary. Reform not worth sacrificing your own life? Then use the democratic process instead.

So...

[herrvinny]

So, what you're telling me is that Bush is stupid as an orc*, a troll who's pro-business, and cares only about his reelection prospects... What else is new?

*apologies to the Orcish-Americans out there, I know that's a grave insult.

Re:So...

[Pave Low]

Har Har Har.

You put Chris Rock, George Carlin and Richard Pryor to shame.

Re:So...

[dR.fuZZo]

So, what you're telling me is that Bush is stupid as an orc*, a troll who's pro-business, and cares only about his reelection prospects... What else is new?

He's also as far-sighted as a kobold in the noonday sun.

Re:So...

[TALlama]

Sure, apologize to the orcs, but go right on insulting all us trolls! Insensitive clod!

He was our University President

[netglen]

I'm amazed in seeing how far John Marburger has gone. I first knew him when he was the president of SUNY at Stony Brook when I was a student. He then went to Brookhaven National Labs and now he's the President's Science Advisor. I'll be real interested in how this whole event carries out. Personally I found Marburger to be a really upfront and a likeable person. I hope these high level politcs hasn't changed him.

Re:He was our University President

[Anonymous Coward]

"Personally I found Marburger to be a really upfront and a likeable person. I hope these high level politcs hasn't changed him."

Read between the lines. He's "troubled" that all these scientists are critical. That doesn't mean he disagrees with them. Maybe he's troubled at the shite he has to put up with in his currrent job.

Or maybe he is a shill. For all I know he's not half the man you remember him as being. But there are good people trying to work within this administration. They're just stifled.

Re:He was our University President

[Anonymous Coward]

He is working for the Bush Admin... ten to one odds he has already sold out.

Re:He was our University President

[netglen]

Well nice guy aside, you two are probably correct. I guess once you move away from being a pure scientist, you begin to become more of a political animal. It's a shame.

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.

Re:He was our University President

[netglen]

I guess the /. universe is a strange and whacky place. I thought at worst readers would just ignore my personal views and opinions of the President's Science Advisor. I'm guessing that critcs just didn't read the article. I could have gone into a little more detail about Dr. Marburger. I actually sat with him at two University luncheons and we got to shoot the breeze a bit.

IRS Audits

[Rick the Red]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had cheated on their income tax.

Oh, there couldn't possibly be distortion...

[fluxrad]

*cough*freevibe.com*cough*

Re:Oh, there couldn't possibly be distortion...

[tolan-b]

god yes...

I've been ranting about freevibe to anyone who'd listen for years, it's atrocious..

Re:Oh, there couldn't possibly be distortion...

[BoneFlower]

Actually, the facts listed on that site are pretty accurate.

Of course, they don't mention anything that mitigates the risks they list, or list any possible good drugs can do, but it is an improvement over other anti-drug sites in that the facts they do put out, while incomplete, are accurate in and of themselves. Its a step up. A *small* step up, but it is an improvement. The overall effect is misleading as all hell but they aren't actually lying like they used to.

Too risky

[bstadil]

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term

They had pretty much this is France and changed it. It was 8 years for President, now down to 6 I believe.

The problem is first time around. What if the person is totally inept? You never really know. Think Carter for 10 years and Shudder the Current moron.

Re:Too risky

[Anonymous Coward]

Think Bush for 10 years... Yikes. What a state our country would be in.

Wired's article.

[CFBMoo1]

Here's one on wired. I saw that one before the headline here. As for who to believe, I'm inclined to go with twenty Nobel laureates and 40 other scientists over one Whitehouse full of politicians. No matter what your opinion on politics, don't forget to get out and vote this year and let them know how you feel about this and other issues.

Re:Wired's article.

[RickHunter]

Yeah... Vote third party. Because it looks like the Democritans are going to nominate George W. Kerry, while the Republicrats are going with John Bush. Or was that John Kerry and George W. Bush? I can never tell, their positions on everything under the sun are so similar.

In short: elect Kerry, four more years of Bush. Elect Bush, four more years of Kerry.

Re:Wired's article.

[gnu-generation-one]

"No matter what your opinion on politics, don't forget to get out and vote this year and let them know how you feel about this and other issues."

Hang on, didn't the only serious candidate drop-out of the election? So again, the point of voting is...?

New Guidlines

[ackthpt]

New Administration Guidelines:

Pi has been redefined as 3, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.

e has been redefined as 2, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.

Air purity regulations have been relaxed so reduced visibility will help obscur tall buildings from planes piloted by terrorists.

Water purity regulations have been relaxed so terrorists drinking it may go to their martyrdom sooner, without killing patriotic americans.

The etters '','' nd '' hve been strken from the lphbet to hnder terrorst communctons.

Your Presdent thnks you for dong your prt to defet the enmes of merc nd protect freedom!

feeding the troll

[Phragmen-Lindelof]

I am glad we are now protected by SDI; those Martians would be shooting down landers (aircraft) here if not for it.
Those silly scientists don't really know anything. We all realize Bush invented antibiotics, cell phones, nanotechnology, etc.

Political Grandstanding

[Pave Low]

This 'Union of Concerned Scientists' organization is not just an 'independent organization. Take a look at their website. Just because they are scientists doesn't mean their opinions can be less biased anybody else. It is a bunch of greenie treehuggers.

Finding a few examples of supposed censorship and distortions means Bush = Evil? .

The fact that this story's other references are all noted liberal newspapers and opponents of the Bush Adminstration shows what a leftist propaganda site Slashdot is.

y?

[Anonymous Coward]

Y i was downloding Y when I could of been challnging the US? Tell me Y!

Democracy

[Anonymous Coward]

Be nice... this administration is just trying to keep its (religious) base happy. Isn't that what they got elected for?

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:From the astronomy angle...

[Anonymous Coward]

The plan to send mem to Mars is all about image making for this administration and plans for further militarization of space and the hollowing out of the NASA budget so that they can help staunch the budgetary hole created by massive tax cuts for the wealthy. It has virtually nothing to do with science.

The fact is that manned space travel causes humans to be exposed to near zero-gravity environments. Such exposure causes, largely irreversible bone loss, roughly on the order of about .5% per week. Given the long distance to Mars and the speeds human spacecraft are likely to attain (lest they accellerate to spees where shearing forces to tear the astronauts apart), any astronauts that go there are likely to return so weakened on the return trip that their bones would become so brittle that it would be hard for them to hold up their body weight upon return to earth, even if lying in bed. Of course they would also discover that mars is a extremely cold, barren wasteland that is unfit for human habitation.

Even if we were able to find a way to bring enough oxygen and nitrogen along to create small artifical pockets of atmosphere it would still be incredibly cold and huge amounts of imported fuel would be required to stay warm for any length of time.

While scientists have now known all this for some time, the general public having watched a few too many episodes of Star Trek somehow likes to remain wedded to fantasy thinking. Those who think that somehow we must go so Mars can become a safe haven after we have irreparably destroyed our own environment, might want to reasses their thinking on the importance of preserving what little of earth's environment we still have left.

There are lots of easier ways to create human jello and certainly lots of ways cheaper than spending a few hundred billion for such a certain outcome. Of course, Karl Rove knows he's really appealing to a country of scientific illiterates, who generally believe that one can overcome the laws of science through the use of hot air.

But I am open minded and don't necessarily think that the world wouldn't be better off if Bush and his supporters decided to colonize Mars. Lets just let them do it on their own dime like the good open market champions they profess to be.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[FreshFunk510]

Interesting. I, too, was skeptical about this whole mission to Mars idea that was proposed by Bush.

After reading the Wired articles from today's /. threads, it makes me think that Bush is something of a dot-con (dot-bomb, etc).. he's like the next Enron or the next Tickle-Me Elmo. What I mean is that he's able to draw all this hype (with WMDs, with tax cuts, with Mission to Mars) and I think it's all beginning to tumble down now.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[Anonymous Coward]

Luckily it looks like they'll have to develop a new launch vehicle for a mars mission. I figure there is a fairly good chance such a launch vehicle would launch much more cheaply then the shuttle. Thus in the long term, even if the mars mission itself is fairly useless, the cheaper launches will allow for more space science. However, I don't think bush thought of this, or he'd have concentrated on launch vehicles.

Quickshot

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[uxo]

DirtyJ:

We also see the imminent demise of HST.

Relax, it's being replaced by the James Webb Space Telescope.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[spanklin]

If you follow any of the HST threads (many of which draw comments from astronomers like myself & Dirty J), you would find out that the JWST was never meant to replace the capabilities of the Hubble. It will be an amazing telescope in its own right, but it simply will NOT be able to perform many of the types of observations that Hubble can do now.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[uxo]

The post I replied to suggested that Bush's Mars boosterism is the "apparently just coincidental" cause of HST and the shuttle's demise. You and DirtyJ surely know the decision to decommission HST preceded any of this Mars talk.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[uxo]

I went offline to talk up some folks about JWST, HST and the shuttle. Here's what they told me:

"The shuttle will never fly again."
"The shuttle will be back in service this summer."

"Hubble will be serviced again."
"DUCK!!!"

"JWST isn't scheduled to launch until 2012."
"Some guys over the wall are coding for JWST as we speak."

All I can say with any degree of certainty is that HST has reached its operational life expectancy, and the fact that its replacement is not on the launch pad now cannot be laid at the feet of GWB.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[spanklin]

All I can say with any degree of certainty is that HST has reached its operational life expectancy, and the fact that its replacement is not on the launch pad now cannot be laid at the feet of GWB.

What does that comment and the rest of your post have to do with what I said, which is that JWST is not a replacement for the HST? In fact, I don't see that I ever said anything about GWB in my post, or in fact in any post I've ever written!

The relevant point is that Hubble can observe in the ultraviolet, optical, and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. JWST will be an infrared-optimized telescope. It will not have UV capabilities, and its optical performance will be mediocre.

Re:From the astronomy angle...

[uxo]

spanklin:

What does that comment and the rest of your post have to do with what I said, which is that JWST is not a replacement for the HST? In fact, I don't see that I ever said anything about GWB in my post, or in fact in any post I've ever written!

Nothing. And no, you never did. I was explaining my response to DirtyJ's original post.

spanklin:

The relevant point is that Hubble can observe in the ultraviolet, optical, and infrared regions of the electromagnetic spectrum. JWST will be an infrared-optimized telescope. It will not have UV capabilities, and its optical performance will be mediocre.

You are absolutely correct. I wasn't looking at it from the user perspective. NASA is transitioning from HST to JWST, therefore that-which-is-transitioned-to replaces that-which-is-transitioned-from. That's a contractor's perspective. Won't be last time somebody says "That's great, but I liked the old one better."

Data is always open to interpretation

[magarity]

Asking 100 randomly selected scientists to give an analysis of some data will probably get you a good 20 to 30 different conclusions. It should be no suprise that you can find a group that will complain that the conclusion reached in a politically sensitive issue is not their own.

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.

Ugh...not again

[Anonymous Coward]

As always, the rule with what michael approves is:

* If it's anti-Bush, it has a chance.
* If it's pro Bush, it's rejected.

Couple that with michael's frequent approvals of articles that grossly exaggerate facts, and I have to concluce that, once again, I can't trust a single shred of that slashdot article.

It is truly a shame

[instantkarma1]

that politics influences the scientific process. This administration, in particular, seems to know no bounds when it comes to manipulating facts to better fit with their agenda.

They (seemingly) manipulate intelligence reports to paint an incredibly grim picture of Iraqi's WMD program in order to justify an attack on a sovereign nation

The view the same job market and economy reports we do, and yet see 250 million new jobs being created this year, and that the economy is doing just fine, thank you.

Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.

Why not circumvent the scientific process if it will appease the American Taliban (read the very left-wing christian fundamentalists, not your every day christian) and keep the $$$ rolling in from big corporations?

The short-sightedness of this administration is staggering. Yes, everyone knows other administrations have been corrupt as well, but Christ! They didnt' have the chutzpah this one does.

They scare me.

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:It is truly a shame

[Ranger96]

very left-wing christian fundamentalists

Wow! Where do you find those?
Ranger96

Re:It is truly a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

AI error: Invalid contextual data.
Object:Amercan Taliban.
Conflicting Concepts: taliban and christian;left-wing and taliban;left-wing and christian fundamentalist.

Suggested Meanings:right-wing christian fundamentalists == taliban (90% match); left-wing communist fundamentalist == taliban (75% match); Bush is left-wing (0.000001% match)

Re:It is truly a shame

[smoondog]

that politics influences the scientific process.

No offense, but you are misguided by an idealistic vision. Science is, and has been very political. In fact in some areas, it is nothing but politics.

-Sean

Re:It is truly a shame

[Politburo]

The view the same job market and economy reports we do, and yet see 250 million new jobs being created this year, and that the economy is doing just fine, thank you.

250 million new jobs! Holy shit, we're all gonna have to take 2nd jobs to fill these positions!

The estimate you speak of claimed 2.6 million new jobs. The administration has since backed away from that estimate, and doesn't see the need to release an accurate estimate, and it's "playing politics" to ask for one, so don't.

Re:It is truly a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are going to make such outrageous claims, then you better back them up with actual facts.

What civil liberties have been trampled on? Do give me some crap about the evil Patriot act. Please cite some actual cases of where a person's civil liberties have been violated.

That was a projected surplus. I guess the dot com crash and the effects of the 9/11 terrorist attacks had nothing to do with the spending deficit.

When did the administration express the desire to have government schools teach only creationism and remove evolution from the curriculum?

The administration has never said that abstinence should be the only topic in sex education.

Re:It is truly a shame

[bobobobo]

Yes, everyone knows other administrations have been corrupt as well, but Christ! They didnt' have the chutzpah this one does.

Other adminstrations have been just as corrupt or moreso. The difference this time around is that we are living in an information age and have access to alternate news sources and the like. In short it is much harder this time around for the Bush Adminstration or any administration to pull the wool over the eyes of the American public. We are just better informed nowadays.

Re:It is truly a shame

[Rotten168]

Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.

Where in the constitution do you see the seperation of church and state? You might want to read that constitution while you're blithely commenting on it in this hideous forum.

The view the same job market and economy reports we do, and yet see 250 million new jobs being created this year, and that the economy is doing just fine, thank you.

Well almost all indicators for the economy are fairly good, save job creation, and we base those on two reports which are showing different things.

Re:It is truly a shame

[cjhuitt]

Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.

While I personally favor "faith-blind" legislation (organizations are neither given nor denied funding because they are faith-based, but only on what qualifications they have in the area being funded), I would have to say that not being allowed to fund faith-based programs is also merely an interpretation of the Constitution.

The first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now, a close reading of that text might reveal that the words "separation of church and state" aren't in there. Some degree of separation is certainly implied, but what degree?

The whole question seems to hinge on the words "respecting" and "establishment". In this situation, mostly on establishment. Does funding a faith-based program "establish" that program? I don't personally think so, as long as the faith wasn't the reason the funding was received.

Courts have, of course, set a precedent on these things, but remember that court opinion is also an interpretation of what was written. "Separation of church and state" is one of those interpretations, although a commonly-held and accepted one.

The text of the first amendment, and links to information about it.
A summary of the history of the religion portion of the first amendment, and how the current interpretation has come about.

They scare me.

A lot of US politics these days scares me. But then again, some human descendants might make it far enough into the future to learn better. Maybe.

Re:It is truly a shame

[Wolfier]

I'll give only one example. You'll find the other evidence yourself. These claims are supported by facts and are NOT outrageous from what I know.

http://www.actupny.org/reports/bush-coburn.html

Simply put, tying policies with the moral values of a small group of people is backwards. And it's what Bush is doing.

Re:It is truly a shame

[TheSync]

The US economy is doing just fine. We are recovering from a cyclical recession after an incredible dot-com runup. Unemployment rates are extremely low (compared with the period before the dot-com era). We are still a couple of million jobs down from the peak (when unemployment was below 5% due to the dot-com crazy world where seats needed hot bodies for IPOs instead of real talent). However it is very likely that 1 million more jobs will be added this year. No, 2.5 million new jobs this year probably won't happen, but the administration backed down from that recently.

Not only that, interest rates and inflation are incredibly low.

Re:It is truly a shame

[bruthasj]

This is the same administration who has essentially trampled your civil liberties as well.

It seems you can still continue your diatribes and rants; it appears your civil liberties are in tact.

This is the same administration who have turned a $200billion surplus into a $700billion deficit.

Bad economy, corporate scandals, 9/11 and war. If you don't acknowledge these as being one of the myriad thousands of causes and blame the deficit squarely on the president, then you're either ignorant or stupid.

This is the same administration who wants to remove Evolution from schools and teach Creationism.

Do you have concrete evidence to this fact?

This is the same administration who thinks that abstience is the only topic which needs to be discussed in Sexual Education.

No. Again, you're wrong. The first Lady said it herself that abstinence should be an encouraged topic as another alternative to protective sex which in turn both are geared for the same purpose: To prevent early pregnancies, unnecessary abortions, broken families, and increased crime associated with carelessness with sexual relationships. What's trampling over the scientific process?

Internet arm-chair analysis and left-wing bloggers are trampling over the process.

Have a good day!

Re:It is truly a shame

[damiam]

It seems you can still continue your diatribes and rants; it appears your civil liberties are in tact.

One person being able to post political statements on a website does not prove that other liberties are still intact for everyone.

Bad economy, corporate scandals, 9/11 and war.

Bad economy - sure, it was declining, but Bush hasn't helped.

Corporate scandals - Ken Lay and other Enron executives are still unprosecuted. Meanwhile, Andrew Fastow only gets ten years in prison after ruining thousands of people's financial lives - that's less than many minor drug sellers. WTF?

War - and guess who started that? Do you think Bush didn't know that wars and nation-building cost money?

This is the same administration who wants to remove Evolution from schools and teach Creationism. ... Do you have concrete evidence to this fact?

I don't know Bush's opinion, but there are people in the administration who would certainly not object to seeing evolution out of schools. They're too smart to push for it, though.

increased crime associated with carelessness with sexual relationships.

So, instead of teaching kids how to have careful sexual relationships, we tell them not to have them at all. They have them anyway (that's just human nature), and we end up with all those problems. That doesn't sound like a very effective system to me.

Dubya responds

[layingMantis]

"If those scientists wanna fight, they found it. Bring 'em on! My crack team of scientists from Exxon and Haliburton continue to stand by our "Kinder, Gentler Fossil Fuels" programs, as well as our faith-based intitiative to persuade evil-doers to give up their WMD. We refuse to accept any other scientific theory that reeks of politics or isn't one hundred percent proven - now if you'll excuse me I've got some phone taps to listen in on - people are freaky!" - George W Bush

An advantage of a dual system

[rjstanford]

Take the UK for example. You have the Prime Minister, who doesn't have to be terribly photogenic but does have to be able to get some serious work done. Then, surrounding their role, you have the monarchy. On the one hand, the royals can handle the ribbon-cutting type of ceremonies that in other countries (such as the US) create some of the movie-star requirements of the presidency. On the other hand, they handle the very-long-range planning and provide valuable continuity for the nation as a whole.

The US Senate was supposed to do the same sort of thing, which is why they have longer terms, but when they went from a (slightly like) "house of lords" appointment system to the popular vote system like the Congress had, that idea got dropped. The original theory was that there should be some representative body whose people did have a vested interest in the country itself, not the administration or a particular company.

Of course, that's just a theory based on poor recollections...

Re:An advantage of a dual system

[Anonymous Coward]

i have no problems with bush being a monarch with no powers (I have a feeling he thinks he deserves to be a king or something anyway) and leave the thinking and decision making to someone else.

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.

Re:An advantage of a dual system

[4of12]

I can appreciate how he defends them in public.

Hey, at least your leader, if defending outrageous policies, is an eloquent speaker and willing to try put together a logical framework to support it.

W. pisses off more people than he needs because he comes across like someone who failed debate class.

Re:An advantage of a dual system

[joib]

Most western democracies have a so called parliamentary system, where the actual leader of the country is the prime minister and not the president/king/queen. The big exeptions are IIRC USA, France and Russia where the president has lots of power.

The crucial difference is that in a parliamentary system parliament can fire the PM and his cabinet any time it wishes. This helps keep the policies of the PM and his cabinet in line with the best interests of the country, whereas in a presidential system the president can do pretty much anything until the next election approaches.

Interesting...

[FooGoo]

Remember when the union pensions used to fund the mob. This is who they fund now. Makes ya think.

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:Interesting...

[qtp]

I would like to know how you have come to the conclusion that the Union of Concerned Scientists is recieving money from the labor unions.

Do you have some evidence to back up this allegation?

Are you assuming this because of the word "union", which means "a joining", as in: these Scientists have joined together (United) because of their Concern, thus forming the "Union of Concerned Scientists".

Nice troll.

Lead industry?

[bigpat]

Is there still an industry specifically for lead production? I would have thought that they would have been bought out by Comcast by now.

Translation

[Syberghost]

For those who don't have time to read the whole article, here's a synopsis:

"Waaaaaah, the last administration pushed our political agenda, but this one doesn't. I want my mommy!"

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

[GoofyBoy]

What about economic-ignornance? Domestic-issues-ignorance? Forigen-issues-ignorance? Medicial-health-ignornace?

Scientific-ignorance is pretty minor compared to these other ignornances.

Re:Demon Haunted World

[k_head]

Don't move to Darby Montana if you want your kids to be educated. see here Of course you were not really planning on moving there anyway were you?

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. -

Re:Demon Haunted World

[uxo]

Wasn't it Carl Sagan (once a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists?)--an astronomer, not a meteorologist, mind you--who predicted a nuclear winter from the smoke of burning oil wells in the first gulf war?

Re:Demon Haunted World

[mav[LAG]]

Sagan himself fell into the same traps though. Read Michael Crichton's excellent speech on the dangers of "consensus" science. It has a number of other good points to add to this dicussion. One very pertinent one is that we should be cautious of a bunch of concerned scientists :)

Re:Demon Haunted World

[Kaki Nix Sain]

Sagan had plenty of experiance with the science of atmospheres from his work concerning other planets. The oil fires prediction was wrong because he overestimated the time the fires would be allowed to burn, he underestimated the effect that water in the atmosphere would have, and conditions do not always allow lofting smoke to rise to the levels needed for it to become suspended for long periods of time. Also, it always seems in the quotes I've read about it, that he could easily be intending a worse case sort of prediction.

Re:Demon Haunted World

[mbrother]

I'm a fan of Sagan and appreciated his contributions to humankind. Unfortunately the people who need Demon-Haunted World are the ones who won't read it. I wish there were a simple solution to the problem.

Public Appeal.

[Sentosus]

I am pretty much in favor of science. I am not in favor of mixing science with politics.

There are many other factors that goes into each of the policies than simply saying they are supression. If you are talking about a small town company being forced to close, then you are talking about unseating a lot of jobs.

I look at the 282 million dollar retrofit of a natural gas facility in South Carolina. That money would have paid 12,000 workers the medium income for the county of location for 1 year.

With any type of reporting like this, the human effects must be weighted. Sometimes it is not just a simply fact where politics is involved. You don't stop a person from eating since what they eat will make them fat or have heart disease. You provide solutions that will fix the issues with the least effect.

Also, if the report was IMPORTANT enough to be public, why was it that those that wrote it didn't just post it to freenet? Could it be that their motivations are less than pure?

Why Bush Administration? Why not the simple statement that SOME in the exective branch were not properly checked and balanced by the other branches allowing supression of information that might have effected policy?

Re:Public Appeal.

[LostCluster]

The entire exectuive branch is the responsiblity of the president. Only the prez and VP are elected offices, everything else is an appointed position. Therefore, the only effective way to force the replacement of a disliked member of the executive branch is to replace the entire administration from the president on down, there's just no middle step.

This report doesnt'accuse anybody of abusing their power, but simply using bad science when trying to justify their decisions. They could have made such decisions with no reasoning at all, but then the public would likely assume the worst possible self-serving reason is the true one. Well, if the scitific reasoning as wrong, either the person is stupid or acting on those self-serving reasons...

Re:Public Appeal.

[Anonymous Coward]

I look at the 282 million dollar retrofit of a natural gas facility in South Carolina. That money would have paid 12,000 workers the medium income for the county of location for 1 year.

So how many jobs would the retrofit create? Hint, those 282 million dollars aren't just flushed down the toilet. This is the fallacy in the argument that stricter environmental standards "cost jobs".

Re:Public Appeal.

[hchaos]

Why Bush Administration? Why not the simple statement that SOME in the exective branch were not properly checked and balanced by the other branches allowing supression of information that might have effected policy?

1) Because the Bush Administration is the only administration in the US Federal government right now.
2) Because they are directly addressing policies that Bush has personally promoted.
3) Because in order to make changes to policies, it is necessary to deal directly with those who are directly responsible for those policies.
4) Because it's completely irrational to think that a person can be in power without being held responsible for how they use that power.

Re:Public Appeal.

[finkployd]

I am pretty much in favor of science. I am not in favor of mixing science with politics.

So science should not be publicly funded? How do you keep that but keep politics out of it?

Finkployd

In other news... Catholic Church accused of

[Anonymous Coward]

suppressing Evolutionary theory.

Politicians distort facts

Is this surprising?

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 Coward]

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.

Ummm, the big reason for playing with the U.N. Inspectors was the fact that the U.S. Representatives were reporting back to the CIA, and not about WMD's.
The U.S. would have had the spies shot for espionage, had things been the other way around.

Somebody lend this git a spoon, as the one his Gubment is feeding him with is about worn out!

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Desert Raven]

The U.S. would have had the spies shot for espionage, had things been the other way around.

Really, that's fascinating. Can you cite an example of this?

The US has caught a large number of spies in the last half-century. I can't recall any of them being shot... Deported or imprisoned, yes. Shot, no.

Spying and espionage are a fact of life in the political world. All countries deal with it, most in a civilised manner, usually through exchanges with the other country, who usually has caught one or more of our own spies.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[FreshFunk510]

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.

But the obvious problem here is that he can't do that with his environmental policy.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[delcielo]

The thing is that our UN membership doesn't really allow us to act unilaterally on behalf of the UN. Now, I'm all for criticising the UN for their ineptitude; but if we're going to be a member, we should do so honestly, paying our dues and playing by the same rules that everybody else does. Rules, by the way, that we were primary authors of.

Personally, I think the UN has outlived its usefulness. Ask any Croatian how they feel about the UN. They'll tell you that the UN did nothing in their region; but that NATO brought peace. The UN is a dog afraid to bite people.

If we had gone in solely under the premise that Saddam was a bad-guy, we'd not only have needed to explain why we waited so long; but we'd have to ask ourselves about the other bad-guys we've left alone, or even supported. And don't feed me the line that "We do what we can." We don't do what we can; we do what we want.

There is no doubt that many good things are coming from this war. Saddam is out, his sons are dead. I'm sure there are still tortures in places; but they're not government sanctioned. Freedom, however fragile, is poking its head in, etc. But I think we gained those things despite our worst intentions.

And regardless of the benefits of the war, is there no price to pay for either lying or ineptitude? Shouldn't he face the consequences of his actions? He should; but he won't. The worst consequence to him might be the next election. Or it might not.

The arrogance of this administration is astounding.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Imperator]

They were playing games with the inspectors... and then the US Congress voted to authorize a war, and suddenly Iraq couldn't invite the inspectors back in fast enough. But the Bush administration had no interest in working inspections, so they had the CIA send the inspectors on wild goose chases. (The charitable version is that the CIA simply had no fucking clue.) And when the inspectors did find something (a few missiles that had been modified beyond the UN-approved range limits), the Bush administration didn't admit that it showed inspections to be working--they said it showed that the inspectors were insufficient! Because they actually were doing their job and getting results!

If you want to say we had a legitimate reason to invade Iraq, look at the potential humanitarian benefits. As Bush points out whenever the WMD question comes up, Saddam Hussein's regime was brutal and unjust. There's an argument to be made there. I'm not sure I agree with it--a war of liberation needs a lot more backing to be widely seen as legitimate--but there was certainly an argument there that I would have listened to, had the administration made that argument before the war.

They didn't, and instead gave some crap that no one really believed either then or now (outside of US conservatives anyway). Thus, our whole foreign policy has been utterly discredited, no one believes us, and our army is too stretched to deal with (say) North Korea.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[zeux]

That's a point, but that's not the real reason.

Iraq decided back in November 2000 to start selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars, and the bad side for America is that it did succeed.

This war was fought to prevent other countries from doing the same. Like Venezuela who felt under a coup (a US funded coup) just after trying to exchange oil with services instead of dollars.

The thing is that if OPEC starts to accept Euros for oil purchases the US will economically collapse because of its huge debt (way worse than Argentina when it did collapse).

Full explanation and documents to prove this point of view.

This has never been discussed in any major US media. Weird.

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:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm sure there are still tortures in places; but they're not government sanctioned.

They're not openly government-sanctioned, anyway.

Er, wait a minute, are we talking about the U.S. or Iraq? So hard to tell these days when it comes to torture.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Cyno]

The Bush administration has started

Wake up, they've always been talking shit.

But the real reason to go to war, to bring our version of "freedom" to the people in Iraq, could have been accomplished by giving them all green cards and free transportation to the states. Or the real reason to go to war, to prevent them from having WMD, could have been prevented back when we were selling them WMD. Or the real reason to go to war, to avenge the terrorist attacks, could have been averted by having a central intelligence agency that gather intelligence. Oh wait.

What concerns me is the lack of concern we feel for the innocent lives we slaughtered in both Afghanistan and Iraq right after making such a big deal about 9/11 on our international media channels. So we trade 3000 innocent lives for 12000. That's a heck of a deal, don't you think?

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. You still don't seem to be concerned about the loss of innocent life. War causes innocent deaths, did you know that?

What was right about bombing Iraq? What did we accomplish? What is worth 12,000 innocent lives?

I was once told, probably by a teacher, that 1 life is worth more than $1,000,000. But now I can't see how a single life could be worth that much, at least not in the eyes of the public. Maybe they were talking about an American life?

I hate this country!

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[comedian23]

>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

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[jnicholson]

I was once told, probably by a teacher, that 1 life is worth more than $1,000,000. But now I can't see how a single life could be worth that much, at least not in the eyes of the public. Maybe they were talking about an American life?

A sum such as $1,000,000 used for the value of a life is generally used to calculate the cost/benefit ratio of public works; for example, if a road upgrade will cost $3,000,000, 3 saved lives due to the upgrade will make the cost of the upgrade 'worth' the saved lives. In NZ, you need a cost/benefit ratio of something like 20:1 before such things go ahead; i.e. a $3,000,000 upgrade would need to save 60 lives (per year? - I'm not sure) before it would be done.

Perhaps something like this is what your teacher was talking about.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Cyno]

Leave their ancestral home because some psycho is in power in their country? Hell no.

Well, if they don't have the courage to do something about him.. for all I know they loved the guy. Its amazing how persuasive a media system mixed with a fundamentalist religion can be.

As for the rest, I think we have destabalized the region. But I don't really know anything about anything outside our borders except what I read.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Cyno]

I don't know why they marked your comment down but I disagree. That's less of a Troll than my previous ramblings.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Coward]

I found many more documents on that. It seems many people talk about that everywhere in the World except in the US.

Amazing how people from foreign countries know usually better on the way the US works economically than most US citizens do :)

Here is the best document I found:
Click here.

Many more thanks to Google:
Click here.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[comedian23]

>Well, if they don't have the courage to do something about him.. for all I know they loved the guy.

True, they have been doing nothing for a long time. Although the way their government dealt with dissidents indicates to me that the people were probably too frightened to act. I'm sure that some people liked him, especially those of his sect of Islam( is it Sunni or Shi'ite, I can't remember? ), but it seems like the other sect, and especially the Kurds disliked him.

>I think we have destabalized the region

Maybe in the short term we have, but I think in the long term, bringing Capitolism and Democracy to the middle east thru Afghanistan and Iraq is going to help the middle east immensely.

As for your other post, I have no idea why I got modded down for Trolling. I thought I was respectful and made a good point, in response to your post, but oh well... *shrugs helplessly*

-Comedian

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Coward]

More here, here and here.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Website dedicated.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah it explains the U.S. action in Bosnia, Kosovo too, oh wait that was textiles, well then Afghanistan...eermm, O.K. Clinton helped Aristede overthrow Cedras, clearly that was in the U.S. interest because of all that Haitian oil. Uh well how about when the U.S. asked the UN to stop the genocide in Rwanda, and was ignored, obviously that must have been about oil... Those of us from the U.S. have heard these theories and while our government hasn't made a significant move away from oil, the U.S. is closer to meeting its would be kyoto targets than most of europe (most of the 3rd world had no kyoto targets which is part of the reason the U.S. wasn't in favor of signing it. It is always easier to criticize the U.S. than to solve the problems on your doorstep. Our biggest mistake is that we don't respond to propaganda from Saddaam Hussein, Bin Ladin and other reality challenged despots. Our leftist media and political organizations glom onto these theories as campaign material and soon it becomes a mainstream "truth." --Conspiracies ? us.

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[kevlar]

You arrogant fool.

Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

Danish Government Committee Exposes Union of Concerned Scientists

Written By: Neil Hrab
Published In: Environment News
Publication Date: February 1, 2004
Publisher: The Heartland Institute

_____

Best-selling author Michael Crichton recently observed that environmentalism
is a kind of pseudo-religion. He's right. Environmentalists have their own
holy day (Earth Day, April 22), their saints (Rachel Carson, Jacques
Cousteau), demon (George W. Bush), and Garden of Eden (Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge). They also have their own Grand Inquisitor--the Union of
Concerned Scientists.

The Union's job is to hunt down heretics who desert the true faith. One of
those is a Danish academic named Bjorn Lomborg. The green witch-hunters have
been after him for the past three years.

Skeptic Attacked, Vindicated

Lomborg, a statistician, was once a member of Greenpeace and believer in the
green religion. But he began to doubt its articles of faith as he studied
the facts about the environment. Eventually Lomborg reviewed all the latest
research and compiled his findings in a 540-page book, The Skeptical
Environmentalist, published in 2001.

Before long, the green version of the Inquisition began to hound Lomborg.
Savage reviews of his book appeared in newspapers and journals, claiming the
book was based on a "lie." The Union of Concerned Scientists helped mobilize
some of Lomborg's detractors.

In Denmark, his enemies formally attacked his scholarship. In January 2003,
the oddly named "Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty," a creation of
the government-funded Danish Research Agency, sprang into action. Its
verdict: Lomborg was "guilty" of "plagiarization" and "fabricating data."

Lomborg's "optimistic view of the world" made it impossible for scientists
to credit his findings. The greens asserted Lomborg tailored his book's
conclusions to fit his belief that the global environment was in no danger
of collapse. "[Lomborg's] values regularly taint his conclusions," said one
American reviewer, writing at the request of the Union.

But Lomborg has had the last laugh. On December 17, the Danish Ministry of
Science overturned the January ruling. It found the Committee's judgment
"completely void of argumentation."

Calling the Kettle Black

Those who charge that Lomborg's research is clouded by bias would do well to
look at their own history. The Union of Concerned Scientists, a strident
political advocacy group conveniently based in the shade of Harvard at
Cambridge, Massachusetts, typically interprets science to fit its politics.

In the 1980s it claimed President Ronald Reagan's Strategic Defense
Initiative (SDI) would never work. A Union spokesman said it would cost
taxpayers $1 trillion to put 2,400 armed satellites in orbit to shield the
U.S. against a Soviet missile attack. Persistent criticism finally forced
the group to revise its figures downward--to 800 satellites, then 300, and
finally 162.

In 1984 the Union dropped all pretense to science or neutrality. Popular
science writer Carl Sagan organized a 15-city tour by UCS members to bolster
Democratic Presidential nominee Walter Mondale, an opponent of "Star Wars,"
in his unsuccessful campaign against Reagan. In 1988, the Union and other
"peace" groups opposed research on what's now called the "stealth bomber,"
claiming it would make war with the Soviet empire more likely. The Union
lost that fight, too.

In 1992 the Union issued a "World Scientists' Warning to Humanity." This
petition is no different from the jeremiads of Paul Ehrlich, Lester Brown,
and other members of the environmental clerisy. None dare quarrel with their
dark vision of the future. The Warning speaks of "vast human misery" and a
planet left "irretrievably mutilated." Mankind "may so alter the living
world that it will be unable to sustain life in the manner that we know

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

The Heartland Institute of course being wholly free of any right wing leanings or funding.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

And the Danish government? You can read about Bjorn Lomborg and the troubles he's faced in a number of places.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[LarsWestergren]

Ten things you should know about Lomborg and the "Skeptical Environmentalist":
http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lo mborg_10_things.html

A summary of some of the more important points:

"the environmental issue facing society is not whether we are increasing our material wellbeing - we are - but whether we are prospering in ways that damage the natural environment. Lomborg's book equates -- and confuses -- these two fundamentally different issues."

"Lomborg claims that "marine productivity has almost doubled since 1970" -- a surprising statement given the well-documented declines of many commercial fish stocks. What Lomborg actually means appears later in the book as a figure depicting an increase in total fish catch, plus production from fish farms.[...] And what humans are taking from the oceans and what the oceans are producing are of course fundamentally different matters. "

"Although Lomborg concedes that species extinctions are likely occurring at 1,500 times natural rates[10], he takes repeated issue with an estimate by Norman Myers that as many as 40,000 species may be going extinct each year. But when annual species extinction is calculated with Lomborg's figure, using the number of living species Lomborg cites and the extinction-per-species ratios given by leading authorities in Lomborg's own footnotes, the Myers estimate is confirmed as sitting well within the range."

If you want more in-depth, there is a 64 page rebuttal
here

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

I'm am member of the union of concerned scientists. I'll admit this up front as so no not be confused with a trolling "Anonymous Coward". Please consider your sources before you dare post an article from a fringe group, like the "Heartland Institute" I will not bother to go into greta detail, 5 minutes of a google search will explain better than I can. why you are wrong about 1. The Heartland institute, a Conservative thinktank with ties to just about every pollution industry. 2. You can no concept of the UCS, and what we are about. I can remember the "Liberals" attacking us for beign conservative during the Clinton years. And now the "Conservatives" are attackign us. The fact is..... the UCS deals with facts. Researchers carefully document their data, and the data is not "smoothed" it is open for skeptical analysis, because IT IS SCIENCE. OH BTW, Longborgs math is wrong. Bad Statistical analysis is my pet peeve. This guy deserved a pie in his face just on that, let alone that he has sold himslef out to the highest bidder. People, the VAST majority of scientists and Climatologists believe that global warming is a real issue. The only reason these fringe groups have a voice is that they have big money to back them up. Look around for yourselves. And here.. read the crackpots too http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/ these nuts believe climate change is a good thing!

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

It's pretty funny when one extremist fringe group labels someone else the same way.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

Ah better. I like my hacked PDA!

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

It's even funny when an "Anonymous Coward" calls a bunch of scientists an "extreme fringe group". You've got us. Scientists actually plot to take over the world. it's their sole motivation for uncovering the way the universe works. In fact, we invented the science of climatology because we like windmills. wheeee, aren't they pretty!!! And math, well. You are not cleared to learn about MATH!

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

Face it: UCS is a liberal (socialist) pressure group. Just say it to yourself slowly a couple of times, and it will hopefully sink in.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to read the comments on the kuro5hin article you linked to.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[avandesande]

Ok, so if the group is not political how about referencing a analysis of the Clinton administration? Some of the stuff that Gore says goes way beyond anything science supports.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

you are an Anonymous Coward you are an Anonymous Coward you are an Anonymous Coward you are an Anonymous Coward damn, it does fel good.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

you will need acrobat reader. But check the archives of the websight www.ucsusa.org The UCS has occationally slammed Clinton on things such as NMD (which he later changed his mind on), Anti-Biotics in feed, and Loose Nukes. There is much much more. You can run a search in the archives. The big big big reports (but with all the fun numbers) sometimes require a subscription to a scientific publishing service. Actually, they may have done away with that. Not to defend gore, but I am wondering what you are refering too?

Damn Straight!

[BCW2]

Any excuse for Bush bashing is always allowed here. Reactionary liberals only. Intelligent discussion is not wanted.

Well, right..

[msimm]

Buying scientists off is expensive. ;-)

A degree huh?

[Kohath]

Because no one without a degree can possibly understand anything as important as science.

And they certainly can't be trusted to make their own decisions.

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 degree huh?

[vondo]

Read the web page. They have suggested actions for the administration, congress, scientists, and the *public*. The public is asked to be aware of the issue and contact their representatives.

But the organization is the "Union of Concerned Scientists" so it makes sense that to sign their statement, you should be a scientist.

I may be really interested, say, in what the Bush administration is doing with respect to reproductive health care, but I wouldn't expect to be asked to sign an AMA statement on it.

Re:A degree huh?

[k_head]

To a degree yes. Would you let any old shmoe off the street operate on you? Why not? They don't need a degree do they? I would not let a joe off the street fix my plumbing, roof my house, defend me in court, operate on me, or give me scientific advice. I want to know that they are properly educated and experienced first.

Re:A degree huh?

[Kohath]

What credential qualifies you to make ANY decision or offer ANY comment on ANY subject?

Re:A degree huh?

[k_head]

Jeez that was witty. Judging by your comment I can confidently say that I am more qualified then you to make ANY decision on ANY offer on AMY subject.

Re:A degree huh?

[Kohath]

It's actually a legitimate question. If credentials are required to make decisions (scientific or otherwise), then that's totalitarian. There's no room for democracy at all.

You said "education and experience" were necessary before someone could provide scientific advice. That standard should apply to you as well. So what are your credentials to determine your ability to make those statements?

And BTW, next time you try to condescend to someone, you might want to check spelling and grammar. It's just more effective. Or just be nice instead and spell things whatever way.

Re:A degree huh?

[crayz]

He was making statements about himself. Those are all the credentials he needs. The UCS was making statements about who they want signing their own petition. That is their own business.

And requiring credentials of someone who is going to cut open your body with a scapel isn't totalitarian to anyone but a pothead hippie.

Re:A degree huh?

[k_head]

First of all spelling nazis can suck my cock. Secondly you have no right to ask me anything because you are willing to let uneducated and untrained people perform surgery on people.

Re:A degree huh?

[Kohath]

He was making statements about himself. Those are all the credentials he needs. The UCS was making statements about who they want signing their own petition. That is their own business.

I agree. I just don't know if anyone has the proper credentials to establish the point conclusively. I guess we'll all just have to trust our own judgement.

And requiring credentials of someone who is going to cut open your body with a scapel ...

But, isn't that my own business?

More to the point, the Union of Concerned Scientists is just a bunch of guys with an opinion, like any other bunch of guys. Sometimes bunches of guys are wrong, no matter how exalted they think they are. Other times not.

Furthermore, in a free democratic society, the positions matter, not the people. If you're going to let experts decide anything (or even unduly influence anything) you're on your way to dictatorship.

Re:A degree huh?

[Kohath]

I'd rather trust my own judgement.

And for government decisions, I'd rather trust the democratic process.

Re:A degree huh?

[Kohath]

You're right.

But it still leads me to believe they think that non-degreed persons are unworthy decision makers and ought to do what they're told without question.

Breaking news

[MillionthMonkey]

A Department of the Interior scientific advisory panel of sheep industry experts will be announcing their findings later today that sheep bladders may be used to prevent earthquakes.

The trolls have a point here...

[Anonymous Coward]

...your message would be more convincing if you used proper spelling.

You're dealing with a administration... ...who thinks creationism is a valid science rather than a religious doctrine.

They are luddites plain and simple.

They came out against a health study a couple of weeks ago. The study said that americans are too fat and should eat less fat and more veggies. Real controversial stuff..

Bush is threatened by smart people

[SpaceRook]

Sorry if the subject sounds like a flame, but it's true. Bush got into Harvard and Yale through connections. He was exposed to people infinitely smarter than him, and this seems to have vastly shaken his self confidence. This happens to a lot of us, but we grow out of it. Bush hasn't. All professors or researchers are now 'elites.' Science is subjective. All that matters is faith.

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[Pave Low]

I love how slashdot works here. I make a few comments on this thread that are ontopic, but against the popular opinion, and I'm modded -1 in no time flat for "flamebaiting".

Meanwhile, a completely offtopic nonsensical Bush hating rant is +4 Interesting.

Good stuff here.

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[Anonymous Coward]

All that matters is faith

As I heard today :- "Remember: 9/11 was a faith based initiative"

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[SpaceRook]

Bush hating and non-sensical? I don't hate anyone. And go read the latest Newsweek for insight into Bush's college years.

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you completely out of your gourd? I have no idea how the president got into the schools he attended, but the fact remains that he attended them. Have you ever participated in the Harvard MBA program? It's incredibly tough, incredibly competitive. You think the president got special treatment because of his connections? Everyone in the Harvard MBA program has connections! Nobody just slides through. You don't get an MBA from Harvard without being able to hack it. It just doesn't happen.

Bitch all you want about how he got in; I don't know anything about that, and I assume you don't either. But just try and dispute the fact that he graduated.

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[uxo]

It takes a mature individual to recognize and take council from people smarter than themselves. You may not agree with their politics, but Bush has surrounded himself with outstanding people.

Here's an article by someone who actually attended HBS, and his opinion of GWB.

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[demachina]

George W. is the son and grandson of Yale graduates. All schools give preference to the children of alumni, Yale especially so. 40% of alumni children are accepted there versus 11% of everyone else. It is a school striving to cultivate an aristocracy more than academic excellence. His dad was pretty smart, George W. was always a slightly below average, unmotivated, student:

http://www.cnn.com/2003/ALLPOLITICS/01/20/timep. af firm.action.tm/
http://zhongwen.com/bush/

All indications are George W. was a low C student at Yale though his handlers and the secret service go to great lengths to conceal his grades. They had his Yale transcript in in the military records released this week but the grades were blacked out again. If he was an exceptional student why are they hiding his grades.

He was rejected by the lowly University of Texas before he was admitted to the Harvard business school. Isn't it kind of odd U of T didn't take him but Harvard accepted a low C student in to their prestigous institution. Fact is he used connections to get in and get out with a degree, presumably leveraging his Skull and Bones connection.

It is well documented that the Bush family used connections to move George W. from the bottom of the list for the Texas Air National Gaurd to the top, otherwise he might have been slogging through the jungles of Vietnam packing an M-16 kind of like what he's making all the soldiers in Iraq do today, instead of partying in Alabama. Its also well understood that he refused to take his flight medical because 1972 was when drug testing was instituted. He should have been brough up on charges and may have been but as Governor of Texas he arranged for his aides to clense his Gaurd file in the late 1990's. There are large gaps in what was released this week.

Connections were used to get George H.W. Bush in to Naval Aviation in World War II as well. He was underage, straight out of prep school, and his commission was wildly out of the norm. Some indications are he was escaping the family scandal at the same time where his dad's bank was siezed for trading with the enemy, in particular Fritz Thyssen, Germany's richest industrialist and key benefector in Hitler's rise to power.

The Bush family has NEVER failed to use connections to get ahead. The old joke about George W.'s oil company endeavors, "he would drill dry wells and someone would come along and fill them with money."

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[Anonymous Coward]

All schools give preference to the children of alumni, Yale especially so.

Actually, the opposite is true. Just a couple of months ago, there was a big scandal when it became public that Texas A&M had a policy of giving alumni kids extra admission points. That policy has since been ended.

If he was an exceptional student why are they hiding his grades.

Ah, yes, the old "they must have something to hide" argument. Same argument that whack-jobs use when asserting that the government knows about life on Mars. "If there's nothing there, why not declassify the reports?!"

It's a stupid argument.

Fact is he used connections to get in and get out with a degree, presumably leveraging his Skull and Bones connection.

So? Like I said before, no matter how he got in--I have no clue about that, and neither do you; only suppositions based on the "they have something to hide" argument--the fact is that he graduated from the Harvard MBA program. Below-average students do not graduate from the Harvard MBA program.

He should have been brough up on charges and may have been but as Governor of Texas he arranged for his aides to clense his Gaurd file in the late 1990's.

These allegations failed to convince anybody in 2000, and they're failing to convince anybody now.

The Bush family has NEVER failed to use connections to get ahead.

Through this whole, almost slanderous post, you haven't said one thing about the fact that THE PRESIDENT GRADUATED. Not an idiot.

The old joke about George W.'s oil company endeavors, "he would drill dry wells and someone would come along and fill them with money."

The joke was about Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. You can't get even the most basic citation right, huh?

Re:Bush is threatened by smart people

[demachina]

"So? Like I said before, no matter how he got in. I have no clue about that, and neither do you;"

You conveinently continue to ignore the URL to CNN which clearly states %40 of legacies get admitted to Yale. The fact that his dad and granddad were very powerful politicians pretty much insured his acceptance and that professors would pass him. His grandfather was the Senator from Connecticut, Yale's home state, for God's sake. Get a clue, you don't seem to grasp how influence works in this world. Yale isn't going to reject the grandson of an alumnust and Senator. Professors probably wouldn't give him A's for who he was but they were pretty sure to not flunk him and risk the wrath of his family and family friends.

You also fail to explain why lowly U of T rejected him if he was such a stellar candidate that Harvard's Business school snapped him up.

From CSPAN:

" In the election of 2000, "George W." had to fend off allegations that targeted his past lifestyle and questioned his intellectual prowess. Bush admitted to a history of alcoholic excess and academic mediocrity-a contrast to Gore's "straight arrow" persona. (In reality, while each had Ivy League credentials, neither had stellar academic records.)"

"Ah, yes, the old "they must have something to hide" argument."

Hardly. Simple fact of life. They had a picture of his Yale transcripts on the news a few days ago, from his just released Gaurd file. You could read the classes he took but the grades were blacked out. All of this records from Yale were seized, by the Secret Service if I recall. Maybe they do it for all Presidents but if George W. was a stellar student they would be flaunting his grades not hiding them. Clinton was a Rhodes scholar so you KNOW he had academic credentials. He certainly didn't graduate from Yale or Harvard with honors or that would be public record.

"These allegations failed to convince anybody in 2000, and they're failing to convince anybody now."

George W. was given a free pass in 2000. Its completely unobvious why the media and the Democrat's let most of the skeleton's in his closet go largely unchallenged. Part of it is Democrats are inept at dirty politics in recent times while the Republicans expose every detail about every Democract, real and fabricated. Is not likely George W. will get the same pass this year. The press knows they failed miserably in looking in to George W's background until now. A key problem is he, his family and their friends have managed to erase most of the written proof about his checkered past, and very few people who knew him are going to ruin their lives by coming forward. His National Gaurd file is full of holes. In particular how did he manage to refuse a mandatory medical exam, that grounded him, without disciplinary action.

"The joke was about Rockefeller's Standard Oil company. You can't get even the most basic citation right, huh?"

Geez. I heard it from Kevin Phillips on CSPAN discussing his book "American Dynasty" on the Bush family. Perhaps it was originally about Standard Oil though I imagine they did actually drill some producing wells. George W. drilled nothing but dry holes so the joke works a lot better for him. He made his wealth when family friends gave him a piece of the Texas Rangers at a huge discount and he sold it back a couple years later at a huge profit with no intervening effort required.

Bush's own family admit he was a "late bloomer", code word for partier and coaster. They'd pretty much written him off to carry the political torch in favor of Jeb until George W. quit drinking, found Jesus and boundless political ambition.

critics are hardly partisan

[belmolis]

The scientists signing the letter do not represent the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are an independent group who are merely endorsing the UCS report. Furthermore, they include scientists who are not particularly left-wing, such as H-bomb designer Richard Garwin and physicist Norman Ramsey, both of whom served as advisers to Republican administrations. According to this news item, organizations opposing the Bush administration policy include: the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The opposition isn't coming from the left fringe; it is mainstream.

Re:critics are hardly partisan

[Cyno]

Doesn't matter. That won't stop the McCarthyists from calling them all communists.

Guess who's got the money.

Flamebait, oh please.

[nightsweat]

Show me how we're not doing exactly what the Soviets did when faced with science that didn't support their national goals.

If I was trying to bait, it would have been much more flame-y than that.

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.

Troubling...

[Lebofsky]

I find it troubling how much of a disconnect there is in the American public (and beyond) such that political opinion overshadows scientific fact and mathematical logic. Yet another sign our education system is in crisis.

Even sadder is that people generally don't care to understand the difference between 1 million and 1 billion and 1 trillion. It's all just some big number to them, but a few extra zeros really matter!

As always, I blame the news media (present company excluded, of course). They could really help bridge the gaps but they don't. I believe a law should be passed that every number ever stated in the news should be followed by an analogous per capita statstic. Like, $87 Billion more for the War on Iraq? That'll be $300 each per American. Funny.. Isn't that exactly what Bush gave us in the first tax year after he was elected?

Oops. Too much coffee. Back to work..

- Lebofsky

Re:Troubling...

[FreshFunk510]

I have to admit that both sides of the media, liberal and conservative, are guilty.

However, I've seen plenty of figures portrayed as you wish it were ($X per family, etc) in many popular newspapers and periodicals. That is nothing new.

The problem is how the math is done. It's like when you take an integration and you say "+ C(onstant". That "+ C" makes the biggest difference, sometimes, and it is often glossed over.

Let's take the deficit. Conservatives look at it as a percentage of our total GDP and say that it is low/average when looking historically. I think that's incomplete given our state of economy. Liberals assume that these tax rules will continue indefinitely and protract how big deficits will be 10 years from now. That's also misleading as tax rules do sunset in a limited time and there's no way (I hope) that the legislature would allow for spending to go that long.

Re:Troubling...

[poot_rootbeer]

I believe a law should be passed that every number ever stated in the news should be followed by an analogous per capita statstic.

Yes, I also believe that the First Amendment should be compromised. They were just kidding when they wrote in that "freedom of the press" thing, right?

Re:Troubling...

[jsebrech]

I agree the problem is education, and most importantly a lacking in formal logic teaching. People should be taught in school to recognise a bullshit argument in a formal way. Instead, most people are vulnerable to the simplest of logical fallacies, like the straw man argument.

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:bias doesn't make them wrong though...

[jafac]

I totally agree that business interests should have an input into public policy, and for the reasons you cite. But to have public policy meetings behind closed doors, where the public can not even gain access to minutes and notes after the fact, let alone aren't invited to provide their input, is just plain wrong.

Democracy and Freedom depend on openness.

Re:bias doesn't make them wrong though...

[superdude72]

You might want to look up "bias" in a dictionary.

Nothing to see here

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

Everything's fine. According to the president himself, we don't have nuclear weapons... we have nukular weapons... a totally different thing.

*whew*

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.

Distorted criticizm

[amightywind]

The story name...

Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

should read...

Liberal Scientists: Bush Distorts Science

The article says nothing about the ubiquity of membership of the group, or its political offiliations. More Democrat junk. I want to hear more about Sen. Kerry's alleged affairs.

Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[rrobles]

You quickly will see what is the pathetic direction that the Bush Administration is taking on environmental policy:

http://www.npr.org/features/feature.php?wfId=153 23 21

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[rrobles]

direct link here

"He is senior counsel for the Natural Resources Defense Council in Washington, D.C. Kennedy thinks Bush will be considered the worst environmental president in history and is concerned that Bush will dismantle 30 years of pro-environmental legislation."

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[Rotten168]

NPR... bought with our taxdollars. Conservatives like me were salivating at the thought of killing it once and for all, unfortunately Bush ain't got the balls to do it yet. There's always 2005 I guess.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[pianophile]

NPR... bought with our taxdollars.

Hardly. Only one to two percent of NPR's budget comes from Federally funded sources.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Compare the amount of money spent on public radio to the amount government spends prosecuting copyright infringement and ask me who is subsidizing what.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[Rotten168]

Clearly we're subsidizing public radio. As for copyright law, I always thought that was a function of civil courts rather than criminal. In other words there is a plaintiff and defendent, rather than a prosecutor and defense in a criminal court.

So unless you want to get rid of the entire litigation process your point is moot.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Well, about 90 minutes after your post, the FBI announced they are producing an "anti-piracy" seal for movies, music, and software.

Your tax money and mine paying for the RIAA, MPAA, and BSA's R&D. And of course, also reminding us all that it is a Federal offense to copy this stuff.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[Rotten168]

Ah yes, the immortal slashdot enemies... RIAA, MPAA, and that other one whatever it is. never mind that even the GPL uses copyright to prevent big bad microsoft to cut and paste crappy GPL code into their OS's (from my understanding).

So because the federal government is paying to enforce copyright standards it's therefor completely appriate to fund a radio program?

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[EvilTwinSkippy]

We are talking about the difference between a few million (for radio) versus a few billion (to prop up industry fat cats.)

Six of one, half dozen of the other.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[Rotten168]

A few billion? Do you have source on that? Perhaps it is.

And anyway, my point still stands. Unless you want to get rid of copyright laws (which crappy GPLed software uses to protect itself against big bad corporations) then the government will have a division to enforce copyright laws. Perhaps it's overfunded and that's something to be looked at. It still doesn't justify paying for Lake Wobegon.

Re:Listen to Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. interview

[EvilTwinSkippy]

I pay for Lake Wobegon you insensitive clod!

From their website:

Public TV's total national, regional and local revenue in FY00 totaled $1.6 billion, according to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB). Leading sources of revenue: members (23.5%); state governments (18.3%); CPB and federal grants/contracts (16.4%); businesses (16.1%); state colleges and universities (6.5%); and foundations (5.5%).

So, the federal government chips in 16.3% of 1.6 billion dollars. That's 260 million.

From their website, NPR's operating budget (total) is 100 million dollars. Congress pays for 18%.

The FBI budget: 4.298 billion, with $500 in new spending this year to develop counter-terrorism and high-tech crime fighting.

From their website "High tech" crimes outrank public corruption investigations, protecting civil rights, combating organized crime, and even upgrading the organizations technology to successfully perform their mission.

While I don't have a hard number, I can tell you if it's not close to 280 million, it's probably more.

Nothing new?

[FreshFunk510]

I've seemed to notice that many /.-ers have this opinion of "nothing new". Yes, this is nothing new (especially if you're a skeptic of the Bush administration) but to me this means something big.

The reason is is that much of our bias, one way or another, has come from the media. Yes, much of it can be based on facts, but I think we'd all be lying to ourselves considering the amount of biased media out there. While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.

Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought out or created like special think tank groups out there. So, therefore, this sort of report gives our concerns about the Bush administration, in my opinion, real legitimacy. No longer can people say that our skepticism is the result of "liberal media".

Re:Nothing new?

[MasonMcD]

The reason is is that much of our bias, one way or another, has come from the media. Yes, much of it can be based on facts, but I think we'd all be lying to ourselves considering the amount of biased media out there.

The media only has a small amount of time to cover the country, world, infotainment, sports, etc. (Headline News notwithstanding), so there has to be some limitations to what editorial spectrum they present. Most of the time, it's middle of the road/conservative. When Noam Chomsky has a talk show, then we can argue about the extent of liberal bias in the media.

I think it was a Tom Tomorrow comic that had the media in pseudo-heated debate about the first Gulf War. Ahh yes, here they are:

Equating non-equivalence, and arguing from an initial fallacy (I'm sure there are real rhetorical terms for those, but I'm too lazy to look them up; not lazy enough to read those comics, though!)

Re:Nothing new?

[stand]

I don't think it's a question of media bias. Media cluelessness or lazyness more like. The real problem is that the media too often presents scientific material without context. The "health reports" done by local tv media outlets are a prime example. They are generally nothing more than anectdotal evidence presented as fact with perhaps a dissenting egg head brought in for a "balance quote."

This sort of reporting is really an unacceptable way to make any decision about a complex topic, but it is compelling nonetheless. For whatever reason, we are not equipping people to understand the difference between an assertion with supporting evidence and an opinion. I think what we're seeing here is a bunch of scientists who are think they have the former being dismissed as if they merely have the latter and they are tired of it.

10 years of GWB - it could happen

[Anonymous Coward]

1) Bush gets the second term.
2) Bush gets to appoint a conservative Supreme Court.
3) Bush gets the Constitution revised: "As long as the terrorist threat to our great nation and freedom all over the world persists, we cannot risk a leadership change in our homeland that could endanger our efforts to thwart this Evil. It is therefore necessary for us to rule that the presidency of George Walker Bush can be extended indefinitely, without elections, until the war on terror is finally over".

Don't tell me it can't/won't happen.

Re:10 years of GWB - it could happen

[Anonymous Coward]

And thus began the civil war of 1995.

Scientists

[CoolHnd30]

Ya know the old saying:

"Scientists are like assholes, everyone's got one."

That was how it went, wasn't it ?

And the news are?

[Adartse.Liminality]

Bushy-boy and co. lying? ha! you call that news? their mouths keep moving...

OT The USA got a lot of support after 11/09 which lost very fast thanks to Bush unilateralism/lies, Now the world(hey at least me) supports US citizens to get a *NEW* president, hopefully a better one, anybody in the world can see what kind of loon is Bush, we don't need those.
Disclaimer no I'm not from USA(and you don't know how much I thank that fact at the moment), I don't intend to tell you what to do, You're free to repeat mistakes. and please don't reply I'm busy ;-).

Re:And the news are?

[FooGoo]

What happend on November 9th?

MICHAEL; -1 FLAMEBAIT

[dankdirk77]

Everytime michael gets his turn, he posts propaganda and flamebait stories. Nice use of slashdot... moron. You see, the problem is that LEGITIMATE stories are then pushed off the homepage that much sooner. Go ahead, mod me down for my opinion. Hail ze uberleft.

Re:MICHAEL; -1 FLAMEBAIT

[Anonymous Coward]

So, did you actually read the article, or did you just write it off as more liberal nonsense like every other religious right-winger?

Just because something criticizes Bush doesn't mean it's ultra-left. It seems people in the Republican party defend President Bush as if he's some kind of god. News flash -- he's not. He was voted in by us to perform a specific job. If he's not doing it right, we are well within our rights to keep him in check. If you are too blinded by party politics to even think on your own, then please, keep your opinion to yourself or others like you. Nobody wants to hear it.

shh, here's some money

[Bizzarobot]

"...this administration has in fact been very supportive of science," Marburger said. He noted the administration has doubled the National Institutes of Health budget and increased the National Science Foundation budget."

I guess they were hoping the people that might actually call them out on their distortion of science would look the other way when given a bigger budget?

doesn't change the fact that bush is wrong

[dangermen]

It doesn't change the fact that bush is wrong and that he does distort scientific evidence. He gutted power plant regs so old plants doing upgrades do not have to purchase new up-to-date scrubbers. He is a moron when it comes to the environment. If there is one thing he should have learned from Reagan's era was that env. regs don't make businesses unprofitable.

Virus

[Greger47]

> Bush's science adviser, John Marburger...

As in the Marburg virus? :)

/greger

Whitehouse denies evolution!

[donutz]

Your[sic] dealing with a administration... who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering.

And here is some incontrovertible proof to support your assertion. Right from whitehouse.org, no less!

Re:Whitehouse denies evolution!

[peachawat]

Wait. You do know that whitehouse.org has nothing to do with whitehouse.gov, right?

Re:Whitehouse denies evolution!

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait. You do know that he was joking, right?

Special Interest Groups you're unaware of

[djh101010]

There's a lead industry? And it has influence in washington?

Of course there's a lead industry. You're using a computer, and the components are soldered to the board with...lead. Get up from your desk to go take a drink, and unless your building is less than 5 years old, the pipes are held together with...lead. Get in your car, and the battery works because most of it's weight is ... lead. Drive your car to the doctor to get an Xray, the apron they put over you to cover your "radiologically sensitive glands" is made of ... lead. You go home & turn on the TV, which shields you from radiation from the CRT with, guess what, lead. And so on, and on, and on.

Yes, there's a special interest group for the lead industry. Oddly enough, if they weren't standing up for that industry, we'd have government mandates imposed upon us which have no foundation in reality, like the ill-advised "rip out the asbestos floor tiles" craze in the 90's.

It's a case of a "special interest group" that you're not even aware of, that has a positive effect on your everyday life. Next time you hear someone whining about lobbyists and special interest groups, think for a bit just what the big picture might be.

I don't get it...

[Anonymous Coward]

The Union of Concerned Scientists,

they are like what? The league of Extraordinary Gentlemen?

Re:Well, it's obvious isn't it?

[good soldier svejk]

While GWB has many failings, A Yale MBA is not one of them. His daddy bought him a Harvard MBA, which is much more prestigous.

UCS isn't exactly an unbiased organization...

[cruc]

....that has consensus within the scientific community, though maybe they have consensus with the politically left which they are most certainly (the city where they are located should be a tiny hint). That they are unbiased and indendant is laughable.

UCS Background:

-The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT -- the original "union" -- sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century "hate-America left"); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: "We want capitalism to come to an end."

-Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States' relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War -- a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

-UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of "rigorous scientific analysis."

Issues:

-In 1998 UCS issued a report saying that the threat of North Korea developing nuclear weapons was exaggerated and that the bellicose nation posed no imminent danger.

-In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of "global warming" and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that "the scientific community has reached a consensus." But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called "consensus" was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation."

-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.

-Based, we suppose, on some "science" or other, UCS's Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it "probably represents a turning point." What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing down.

-In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. "It is now abundantly clear," the group wrote, "that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages." Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.

-To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph's Nader's Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.
UCS apparently hasn't learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don't succeed, scare, scare again.

(As quoted from www.activistcash.com )

Unbiased? "Rigorus" scientific processes? Yea right.

Cruc

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

[flamelord]

the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of "rigorous scientific analysis."

Excuse me? how is it not? Please elaborate. There is much to be said about urban sprawls with scientific data and statistics. Regarding the issues of abortion, science and medical studies can also make some statements; I don't know what you are disputing or what your question was regarding scientific analysis and the abortion issue so I will leave it at that.

Based on evidence from the experts (inspectors) (and circumstancial evidence such as forged documents) it was quite evident there were no weapons of ass destruction. (It has even recently come to light that australian soldiers were told the iraqis had no deployable chemical or bioweapons before the war--quite a contrast to the doomsday masks you saw on Fox news while you sat on the couch watching during the iraq war while people in iraq were busy dying.)

Perhaps rather than claiming UCS is biased you should get over your biases rather than bitching about it, you dumb biggot.

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

[Avumede]

-In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of "global warming" and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that "the scientific community has reached a consensus." But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called "consensus" was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation."

Sorry the petition you mention with 17,000 other scientists has been widely discredited for years now. It used deceptive techniques (including a paper seemingly made to look like it was published in Nature), and made no effort to verify results. If you look at who signed up, you find all sorts of joke names and such. So it's basically bullshit.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If a large group of very emminent scientists...

Umm, only 40 some odd scientitsts signed this letter from the UCS. How is that a "large group" of scientists?

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

[nhaze]

UCS petitions get forwarded around science labs all across the US and often blindly supported. I have seen on numerous occasions ivy league grad students and well-known professors blindly sign off on these petitions without ever having seen the literature in question (or the supporting literature for that matter). I don't put much faith in their numbers as a sign of rigorous and unbiased scientific support.

This is just to say that the organization's name and projected image should not in anyway influence the strength of their arguments.

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

[mbw314]

-In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. "It is now abundantly clear," the group wrote, "that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages." Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.

Oil reserves show every sign of increasing?

You might want to look
here: http://www.hubbertpeak.com/
here: http://www.peakoil.org/
or here: http://www.fromthewilderness.com/free/ww3/061203_s immons.html

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

[wongaboo]

This is a classic ad Hom response. Instead of disputing a single one of the assertions these noble laureates have detailed regarding the administrations attacks against science. You urge us to consider the source. Yea, I don't like Bill Gates much either. But is he wrong when he says ""Measuring programming progress by lines of code is like measuring aircraft building progress by weight." No, that's a fact.

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

[DrProton]

Nice ad hominem. Do you disagree with anything specific in the UCS report? Please quote the items you disagree with. Kurt Gottfried is no slouch, and I don't think he's for sale. This report carries some weight. It's about time that scientists spoke out about this issue. Your post is typical right-wing BS, demonize and marginalize, but don't speak to the facts. Debate is a lost art in this day and age.

Speaking as a scientist (PhD, physics), I think that the Bush administration has an agenda, that they politicize science, and that they pick and choose the results that agree with their agenda. Marburger is just a mouthpiece, he probably gets his talking points straight from Karl Rove (pure conjecture on my part). This is really nothing new. I hope the American Physical Society gets behind this. The truth will eventually come out, but it might take years.

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

[Felix Rodriguez]

You know, it really irks me when people call Chomsky and other leftist leaders the "hate-america left".

These people spend their entire lives working for what they think would make America a better place. They point out America's failings, but because they feel they have a better solution.

You may disagree with their opinions, but the name calling is just plain wrong.

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...

[TBone]

Agendas, like the full inculsion of scientific evidence as a basis for making policy decisions?

I mean, who really _cares_ what lead exposure does to kids when determining what the exposure guidelines should be. Or how many degrees an additional 50 million metric tons of CO2 makes the air emperature rise by. Yeah, those pesky Nobel and National Science Medal winning scientists, just trying to promote their agendas for personal gain.

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[tommck]

Scientists agendas are usually based on getting more free tax money for their projects.

If they weren't biased, the document wouldn't refer to "the Bush Administration". It would just talk about the government. When they talk about the president, they make it politics and, during an election year, that's just plain partisanship.

Shame on them!

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[Anonymous Coward]

In the 70's it was global cooling that they were all worried about. Now they are rambling on about global warming. Its all nonsense. Regardless of whatever the issue of the day is, it always seems their solution is the same--- we must move closer to world socialism to fix all the so-called "problems."

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[jimmy_dean]

I entirely agree with your statement. Those who are supposed to be *above* the public in their supposed logical knowledge I find to actually be extremely ignorant and to have a mostly extreme bias towards a liberal political agenda. If slashdotters were truly smart, they'd mostly be classical liberals...not today's joke called a Democratic party that can't stay consistent on anything except making the government bigger and thus able to become more corrupt. Classical liberalism keeps a nice check on the government by keeping it lean. Just my $0.02

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[ChaosDiscord]

If they weren't biased, the document wouldn't refer to "the Bush Administration". It would just talk about the government.

If they feel that the Bush Administration is a key source of many negative trends and opinions then it is perfectly appropriate to finger them.

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[Cyno]

who really _cares_

That says it all right there. We outsourced caring a long time ago.

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[Anonymous Coward]

They don't like the Bush administration and in response they try to attribute environmental problems to him. Its nutty. You're nutty.

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:Scientists have agendas too...

[DF5JT]

" Scientists agendas are usually based on getting more free tax money for their projects."

Guess what: This is non-political money and therefore makes sure the taxpayer actually profits from this research. Scientific projects that serve no obvious economic reason are necessary and need to be sustained and funded. That's an agenda I can live with.

Something to see here

[sacrilicious]

Politicians distort the truth. Nothing to see here, move along...

The notable thing here is that a concerned group of people are DOING something about said distortion, rather than simply waving a jaded hand at the television. That is newsworthy and I'm glad to hear it.

Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[xeeno]

In the middle ages it was easy to justify the absurd by using religion. Now it's science. The reason for this is because there is so much money tied up in science these days that you can find a scientist willing to misrepresent anything you want if you have enough money.

For example, too much exposure to the sun causes skin cancer, right? So you should cover up and only use 10000 spf suntan lotion to prevent skin cancer. Never mind the fact that you NEED some ionizing radiation in order to get vitamin D.

CFC's destroy the ozone layer, right? Never mind the fact that an absurd amount of chlorine blows off of the oceans each year. Never mind the fact that in the late 50's the ozone hole was gigantic. Never mind the fact that a volcanic eruption will spew tons and tons of this shit into the air, far more that we have in the entire history of industry. It's clearly due to us. Sure, because that's what greenpeace says.

You can always find someone that will say what you want them to say. The trick is to pay them enough and give them enough of the spotlight, while claiming that the other side is being partisan. I

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

[Waffle Iron]

For example, too much exposure to the sun causes skin cancer, right? So you should cover up and only use 10000 spf suntan lotion to prevent skin cancer. Never mind the fact that you NEED some ionizing radiation in order to get vitamin D.

You need some sunlight to produce vitamin D; therefore, therefore, sunlight cannot cause cancer.

Sure, whatever you say.

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.

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

[BetaJim]

Never mind the fact that you NEED some ionizing radiation in order to get vitamin D.

If you live in a developed nation and drink milk (or many other foods supplimented with vit. D) you don't need any exposure to UV radiation. You don't have a very good argument for limiting exposure to the sun.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

But, other scientists have told me drinking cow's milk is bad! And that adding supplements to food is also bad! What will I do?! It says something to me that sun exposure was so important to humans, that skin pigmentation changed to allow for it. People of the north have lighter skin specifically to allow more Sun in.

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:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[gaj]

Typical. Fucking strawman argument. The parent never said that sunlight doesn't cause cancer. He implied that the fear-mongers have gone too far in encouraging avoidance of sunlight.

I'd love to say that only on \. (slash intentionally leaning to the left) would such a pathetic excuse for an argument be modded "interesting" ... unfortunately, conservatives are just as bad. Seems like every time I turn around I want to scream at people "stop being on my side ... you're an idiot!", regardless of whether my view on that topic is more liberal or conservative.

I don't mind people disagreeing with me, in fact I enjoy it very much. What I do mind is people disagreeing with me mindlessly.

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:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[EinarH]

The number 1. example of people paying researchers to find the result they are looking for is in the sugar industry. Each year they spend millions on their own sponsored research just so they can continue to create diabetes and hearth prooblems. They have also created their own organization The World Sugar Research Organisation (WSRO) "..International scientific research organisation that represents the sugar industry globally. WSRO's objective is to monitor and communicate research on the role of sugar and other carbohydrates in nutrition and health. "
The members are listed here Objective my ass.

It turns out that more than 80% percent of the worlds research studies and almost all of the long term studies recomends that sugar should only should account for no more than 10-15% of a healthy diet. WHO recomends 10% based on their own studies, other university studies recomends 15%
Despite this, the Bush administartion and the official US position on this is that a 25% limit is "better". They site their own researchers; most of them are sponsored by sugar companies and their lobby organizations.

Some links:
Sugar industry threatens to scupper WHO
US accused of sabotaging obesity strategy
US sugar barons 'block global war on obesity'

So just because the current presidents whants to get reelcted thousands of americans will die in the future from diabetes and hearth problems.

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:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[Anonymous Coward]

the original was exactly the same thing. No scientist ever said "since extended exposure to sunlight causes cancer don't go outside" or "wear SPF 100000" his was a "fucking strawman argument"

I find your cursing and lack of reading comprehension more pathetic

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah and so what. Consume and die.

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

[Pope]

Waving the red flag to warn the world of potential problems will never earn you friends in the world of business or in the minds of the blinkered public, most of whom believe that corporations never lie or harm the public.

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

[datababe72]

The most likely reason we are only now seeing large numbers of melanomas is that people used to die of other things before the melanoma had a chance to appear. Our cells have natural defense mechanisms from DNA damage caused by UV rays, but these are not 100% perfect and mutations can occur. Most of these are benign. However, as we age, the mutations accumulate, and eventually you can get unlucky and have a harmful mutation.

Also, the practice of lounging half-naked in the sun for days on end in relatively new. In the olden days, people wore clothes when they worked outside, not swimsuits.

The link between UV rays and DNA damage is so well-documented that research scientists use it in the lab: they use UV light to fragment DNA or randomly introduce mutations into cells they are studying. Get any basic biochemistry or cell biology book to check my facts if you want.

Yes, we need some sunlight, but not nearly as much as most of us get. In the opinion of this fairly skeptical scientist, the link between sun exposure and melanoma is very strong. I wear my sunscreen.

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

[Waffle Iron]

Typical. Fucking strawman argument.

And the OP wasn't? That was the point.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

If I get this right, your saying there something can have a beneficial effect for you, that it can't have a bad effect.
If that's it, I'll have to inform you that it's quite possible to have something that is both good and bad for yourself. Another good example is breathing air, with it's high oxygen content. You can't live without it, but it does cause considerable amount of damage to your body for you inhaling it and it getting distributed through your body.

Quickshot

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

[Anonymous Coward]

The most likely reason we are only now seeing large numbers of melanomas is that people used to die of other things before the melanoma had a chance to appear.

The age group most likely to get malignant melanoma is 30-45.

Our cells have natural defense mechanisms from DNA damage caused by UV rays, but these are not 100% perfect and mutations can occur.

What genetic or environmental factors affect those natural defense mechanisms?

Also, the practice of lounging half-naked in the sun for days on end in relatively new. In the olden days, people wore clothes when they worked outside, not swimsuits.

Not long-sleeve shirts. There was just as much sun exposure on their arms, shoulders, and backs as we have today.

The link between UV rays and DNA damage is so well-documented that research scientists use it in the lab

True, but that doesn't explain the change in occurrence in melanoma over time. There's something else going on, too. YOU DO NOT HAVE ALL THE ANSWERS.

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

[B47h0ry'5 CuR53]

You need some sunlight to produce vitamin D; therefore, therefore, sunlight cannot cause cancer.

Overexposure to UV radiations is what heightens the risk of cancer. About 5-10 minutes a day, which is sufficient to produce the necessary Vitamin D, is not considered overexposure and hence if you are unprotected only for such a small period of time, then you are not in much of a risk.

Vitamin D also plays an important role in regulating the production of cells, thereby countering effects of cancer.

----\\

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

[Anonymous Coward]

True, but that doesn't explain the change in occurrence in melanoma over time. There's something else going on, too.

Perhaps it's that continent-sized hole in the ozone layer.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean the one that was much, much larger in the 1950's? Back when skin cancer was basically unheard-of? That hole?

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

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean back in the 1950's, when they were using tricorders to sample the atmosphere?

Dude, straighten your Star Fleet uniform! No one's going to take you seriously looking like that!

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:Science is the religion of the 21st century.

[F34nor]

Drinking cow's milk is only bad if you stop and start again. You loose the enzyme you need to digest the protiens properly.

You might be confusing 'need' with a resource issue. Why spend resources on a uneeded defense? Also think about black body radiation (its not a pun) if you are black you loose heat faster through radiation. Granted in sun you can absorb it quicker but in a cold wet hovel the sun isn't really an issue.

Global Warming BS...

[Anonymous Coward]

How quaint. People still buy that into that global warming BS. 25 years ago it was the exact oppisite. Go read Newsweek from April 28, 1975. Here is a link to the text:

http://www.globalclimate.org/Newsweek.htm

In other Bush news, world *is* flat

[FerretFrottage]

which is why we needed to take out a certain nation's regime because it could easily run across a flat planet.

New Organization

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi all,

Today I am founding "Scientists Who Couldn't Give a Rat's Ass". Membership is $500/year. We will quickly establish close ties with this administration and issue weekly press releases during any subsequent Democratic administration.

-Professor Whoever

Bad Democracy!, we want 1 term, 10yr. dictators!!!

[Ominous Armed Cow]

Heaven forbid that we should be able to get rid of someone every four years. If it were ten, what are you going to do, deny them reelection for their *next* ten years (when they're too tired to run again?) This idea is so stupid it should start reading the evening news.

You can go to far the other way too, like the non-confidence vote in a parliamentary system which keeps the government almost totally ineffective. (although that's not always a bad idea).

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.

Re:US is like the roman empire

[sckeener]

I was talking to my wife about the same thing over the weekend.

All countries wax and wane with the centuries. The goal of the US should be to maintain similar principles through out the ages.

Things such as the Bill of Rights should be the center of our government. If a portion of the center is damaged, we need to fix it or we will crash like the Roman Empire.

I'm not saying what the current administration has done is wrong. We elected them. We just need to kick them out ASAP.

Re:US is like the roman empire

[descil]

Before the Roman Empire, the Chinese recognized this particular pattern of the magnificent rise, subsequent jealous infighting, and collapse of political structure. They harnessed it into their political system, reading it as "favor". Perhaps you have heard of the different "Dynasties" of China? Each one is punctuated by a family falling out of power.

China has been on the "crash and burn" track since before the Roman Empire existed. They still are, I suppose.

China Appreciation Moment, please?

But the point is that even though we're on the "crash and burn" track, we don't necessarily have to do it. If people start -listening- to organizations like the ACLU, MoveOn, and the UCS, maybe we will survive. (Or perhaps we will become such a divided nation that we'll have a new civil war; I can only hope.)

Re:US is like the roman empire

[kir]

Did you REALLY just suggest that MoveOn is some how a legitimate organization that Americans should -listen- to? You're joking, right?

Re:US is like the roman empire

[descil]

*sigh*

I was joking about all three, dear.

Re:US is like the roman empire

[kir]

Oh OK. Just making sure. It's getting really hard to tell around here lately.

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:ROFL - yeah, do your own research

[deanj]

Which is worse, screwing an intern or screwing the country?

And with Kerry screwing an intern, and his special interest buddies like the Teamsters promised there would be drilling in Anwar (scroll down, he promised James Hoffa this. It as on TV two nights ago), lobbying for contractors that make illegal contributions... you'd get both!

Woo hoo!

Re:ROFL - yeah, do your own research

[pianophile]

And with Kerry screwing an intern

Kerry did not screw the intern.

LOL

[localhost00]

"...the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions..."

And this is news?

Amusing

[ericlp]

Wacked agenda science guys do a press release and everyone buys it. The Peace Prize used to have merit. The last several years it doesn't. The only way for that org to get back any self respect would be to award it to the U.S. Military which has provided peace for years in many regions. As for missile defense: Which would you prefer: A wack job like NK sends a missile or two our way toward the left coast and we stop it? Or... it hits and we respond with a full attack wiping out the whole country? Some could make an argument that nuking the left coast would be an improvement, but that might be a bit harsh.

Longer terms needed.

[Anonymous Coward]

I actually talked to Nobel laureate Sherwood Rowland yesterday a few hours after this conference and he was actually talking about this press conference and he mentioned that he thought that politicians in the United States are looking far too shortsided, because of the future economic damages. While he isn't the most politically astute guy I have ever met he does realize that there are long term damages that have economic side-effects that we are already seeing. The possibilty of the the expanded desertification of the Sahara for example could cause starvation for millions in the coming decades. I hope there is some reaction to this report, because Rowland has been part of report to the Bush administration on global climate change at least twice since 2001.

Lol, only 3 messages deep

[BoomerSooner]

And we're back to "terrorists". I hate to tell you this but spray-painting a car is vandalism, not terrorism. I disagree with their tactics, but in today's society I understand their futility in playing in a system where Bush has $120 Million already in campaign funds and they want what's right.

Follow the money and you'll find the root of all the problems in politics.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[MoneyT]

Actually, Greenspeace has been called eco terrorists for longer than bush & co have been throwing the word arround.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

They do a bit more than spraypainting. Although they officially denounce it, a number of groups and individuals connected to them have been guilty of tree spiking, which could potentially injure people.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Phillup]

Yes... slavery went on for a long time too.

Your point?

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[abigor]

...but strangely, it never has. Try and find a single case where Greenpeace has hurt anybody with tree spiking.

The amount of misinformation about environmental groups is astounding. How, exactly, are Greenpeace terrorists? Hamas and the Sept. 11 guys are terrorists. Greenpeace is a lobby group, and, at most, promotes a bit of civil disobedience now and then. People waving signs and shouting are not terrorists.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[KarmaMB84]

The Earth Liberation Front has claimed responsibility for arson attacks in the past. One incident caused $1 million dollars in damage but noone was injured. There are ecoterrorist groups floating around; just like there are both violent and nonviolent groups working for other causes.

I would be surprised if there were not also militant extremists within Greenpeace.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[El_Ehmenopio]

As opposed to Militaries extremists, taking over Iraq, sending my friends home in bags.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

"I hate to tell you this but spray-painting a car is vandalism, not terrorism."

Burning down SUV dealerships and housing projects is terrorism. Not to the same extreme as killing someone, but it fits the definition: instilling fear to get your way.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

As a matter of fact it is called 'Arson', you dickhead.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[yosemite]

What's the distinction between a terrorist and someone who fights for what they believe in? none. After all not to long ago the Taliban were called "Freedom Fighters", ever see Rambo III???

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

Killing eco-socialists is called a public service.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[MoneyT]

There's plenty of difference. A terrorist attacks civilians and non military targets. People who fight for what they believe in (soldiers) do not.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[AliasF97]

After all not to long ago the Taliban were called "Freedom Fighters", ever see Rambo III???

I have it on good authority that Rambo III was, in fact, a movie. I can see how it might be mistaken for a historical documentary, though.

Historically speaking, those that we aided in Afghanistan against the USSR were mostly what became the "Northern Alliance".

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

Historically speaking, those that we aided in Afghanistan against the USSR were mostly what became the "Northern Alliance".

That's a lie. The Nothern Alliance came out of Iranian backed groups. What the US supported were called mujahedeen and they were mainly foreigners from other countries (usually Middle East but also Asia). The mujahedeen have mostly retired now (they are too old) but a few are still carrying on their vision in the name of Al-Qaida. If anything, USA probably helped the Taliban more (by providing funds to Pakistan ISI) than the Northern Alliance.

The Northern Alliance is still a "northern" group. Even now, Iran has more influence over it than USA.

Of course, if you go with the official US government view, they were never involved in anything. US govt involvement in Afghanistan in the past is simply dismissed as a left-wing conspiracy theory.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[yosemite]

Soldiers are constantly attacking and killing civilians.

Ask the *Civilian* survivors of the firebombing of Dresden if they were terrorised, or the cars with families in them that enter the wrong checkpoint in Iraq. It's not unheard of for civilians to be killed in a "low intensity" war such as the one in Iraq, in fact it's quite common.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[plugger]

So? Any organisation can be infiltrated by extremists. Many groups of all shades will have extremist members.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[plugger]

The distinction lies in whether they are allied with the one making the label.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[plugger]

Terrorists and freedom fighters seem to mostly exist where there is civil war. Civil wars generally involve both sides attacking civilians, burning villages etc. It's a dirty business, and words like 'terrorist' and 'freedom fighter' are just conveniences, nothing more.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

Haha.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Anonymous Coward]

they're not all "Iranian backed". The Northern Alliance is a diverse group. I did not say all of the mujahedeen had become Northern Alliance, I said most. According to wilkipedia, The factions in the Alliance consist of members from the former mujahedin, others from different minority groups and remnants of the former Soviet-backed Communist government.

I guess you can take up your argument with them. However, I concede to you that some mujahedeen did go on to join al-Qaeda as well. Wilkipedia also gives this definition, in which it states, However, the Mujahideen did not establish a united government, and they were in turn ousted from power by the Taliban in 1996.

This was my point to begin with...that those that the U.S. assisted were not the Taliban.

At any rate, I will argue your point that the only mujahedeen influences left are manifested in al Qaeda.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[MoneyT]

Perhaps you should learn teh difference between intentional attacks and colateral damage. And then i suggest you go talk with some soldiers. They don't go out there to kill civilians.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

At any rate, I will argue your point that the only mujahedeen influences left are manifested in al Qaeda.

I am not arguing that the mujahedeen are left ONLY in Al-Qaida. Rather, many members of the mujahedeen are in Al-Qaida, including Usama bin Laden. I agree with you that some mujahedeen joined the Northern Alliance, while some joined the Taliban.

Unless you claim that USA did not help these mujahedeen that joined Al-Qaida or Taliban, you cannot claim that USA didn't help them no more than you can claim they helped the Northern Alliance.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[AliasF97]

Actually, if I may knit pick, bin Laden fought alongside the mujahedeen, he did not actually join them. And yes, I see your argument, I am merely saying that people who say, "oh, well, the U.S. helped the taliban years ago," are not speaking the truth. As you correctly stated, we helped the mujahedeen, some of which even fought alongside us in Iraq in the Gulf War. But, your point is taken, some did, in fact, join al Qaeda.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[Sivaram_Velauthapill]

I personally never state that the US helped the Taliban; I usually state that the US helped Al-Qaida (in particular Usama bin Laden).

As far as Usama bin Laden is concerned, I don't see how you can say he wasn't part of the mujahedeen. Are you referring to the fact that he wasn't really a fighter (more of a logistics provider i.e. built buildings)? I would personally consider him a mujahedeen because he was in the thick of it. I don't know if he shot anyone but he was armed, wore camouflage, etc. In any case, mujahedeen are holy warriors. Usama bin Laden would have been considered a holy warrior at that time. So either way, I don't think you can claim he wasn't.

Sivaram Velauthapillai

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[yosemite]

They don't go out there to kill civilians

Somehow it always ends up that civilians get killed though huh?

teh difference between intentional attacks and colateral damage.

As the old saying goes the road to hell is paved with good intensions.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[MoneyT]

Somehow it always ends up that civilians get killed though huh?

Well, when they stand arround gawking when the shooting starts, sometimes they get killed. Have you actualy talked to a soldier before in your life that's been in combat? I would guess no. Maybe you should.

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[yosemite]

2 cousins served in gulf war one, got one cousin in boot camp now. Got a friend who is married to a soldier in the 10th mountain, who says all the young 18 year olds are snorting coke and fucking hookers. Thats what I've heard.

Young kids with automatic weapons, high on coke--you tell me, are people going to die?

Re:Lol, only 3 messages deep

[The Analog Kid]

I can never understand these ecoterrorist, they want to help the enviroment, but yet they set fire to cars and other things, putting CO2 and other pollutants in the air, so wouldn't that be harming the enviroment?

Education level vs Busch

[Tran]

Sounds like you are saying people who are better educated will tend to disagree with Busch policies. Quite telling. If you have less education you follow Busch like sheep. If you are educated and have information you know what's wrong with the Busch and you complain about it ( grinding axe ). Hmm. i know which camp i'd rather be in. The one that knows. Of course only the Shadow knows... ( Wait! the shadows are Busch's agent's )

Re:Education level vs Busch

[Original AIDS Monkey]

Judging by your spelling, I think it's pretty obvious which camp you are in.

Re:Education level vs Busch

[Tran]

What you don't like my Germanized spelling of Bush? Gah, sometimes i just let my heritage influence me too much...

Full House

[Anonymous Coward]

It would come as no surprise to learn that a government whose appointment defies logic, whose economic policy harms the most of its citizens, whose diplomacy alienates most of its genuine allies, whose defense policy makes nuclear proliferation more likely, also distorts science. Why settle for any one item when you can have the set.

Global Warming

[Tephyrnex]

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.

The Bush science advisors have great research!

[ScottGant]

Here's what they've found:

Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple

They've found that Democrats cause cancer

Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay

JFK posthumously joins Republican Party

(for those with no humor, this was all taken from an episode of The Simpsons. If you're offending in any way, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.)

Re:The Bush science advisors have great research!

[Anonymous Coward]

don't you mean 92 percent of Democrats are homer sexuals?

Re:The Bush science advisors have great research!

[CrazyDuke]

Mark Fiore has a good one on this topic: Oil Vay!

Re:The Bush science advisors have great research!

[BorgCopyeditor]

Mark Fiore is every bit as funny as Bill Hicks. I mean that sincerely.

Is it flamebait if it's true?

[RatBastard]

Really. His point was made with the subtlety of a brick tossed through a window, but he's basically right. Flamebait? No. Overley dramatic? Maybe.

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.

Troll.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello? This guy is trolling! Why the hell is he at (5, Insightful)?

Not just distortion, but SYSTEMATIC distortion

[Anonymous Coward]

The current administration distorts science (and just about everything else) on a regular basis. The examples are so numerous, its actually hard to find something that the administration has NOT substantially distorted.

In a conference call yesterday, a comparison was made with the current Bush administration to Nixon's and the elder Bush's administrations. These other conservative administrations--even Nixon's--simply didn't engage in such systematic misrepresentations. No other administration has.

Bush Jr. is in a league of his own. He was a miserable student (low C averages, and this ivy-league man couldn't even get into a Texas lawschool), a miserable business man (companies flailed and failed under his management), and its no surprise that he's a miserable president.

This is not an indictment of the US, just Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

I really wish Bush would just go away. The whole world is mixing up his administration with the US as a whole, where Bush's policies are usually sneaky enough to escape notice or buried in issues too complex for most people to take the time to sort through.

This is an extremist government that believes it is ok to hold foreign nationals without trial or legal counsel, stifle scientific research, place the entire country under as much surveillance as possible, subpoena doctors' medical records to bully them into political apathy and generally make us "safer" by pissing off the entire world!

Don't blame us all!

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.

Well I'm not sure...

[Entry-Level Loser]

Let's find some old farmers and teach them science and have THEM do the study - I can't think of anyone else who really doesn't care about the politics.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

[Futurepower(R)]

Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.h tml?ex=1077956111&ei=1&en=a6370df01dc83363

Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RE SE.html?ex=1077771600&en=fe9176d8d470477b&ei=5062& partner=GOOGLE
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,115118 7,00.html
Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsire lease.html

"And geology, geology!", cried a little voice...

[Pac]

...in the back of room, in a tone certain to make you know you shouldn't have forgotten the one "logy" that all but turned Evolution upside down from the sixties on... :)

Re:Science religion and you are an idiot

[Anonymous Coward]

Your comment about CFC's would be laughable if your post were not modded so high. Raw chlorine does not get into the upper atmosphere and is not stable enough to do damage. CFC's are very unique. The CFC ban is one of the few absolute scientific environmental succeses of our lifetime. The scientists involved made predictions based on courses of action, the politicians followed their advice, and the ozone hole is behaving as predicted given the ban.

In conclusion, GFY.

A scientist.

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:Unless

[Libertarian_Geek]

I think we're on the same page here. Except for a couple of points. I wanted to avoid appearing as "conspiracy theory". And maybe I should have been more clear on why I posted my response. I feel that there is the possibility that people erroneously weight what they read. While it's unreasonable to suggest that everyone research everything they read to the fullest. My post was just to challenge peoples preconceived notions when you hear "Nobel Laureates". It wouldn't suprise me if there were just as many who had major disagreements with the report, but the commentary didn't seem to lead to that as a possibility.
I think we all assign a mental weight to the sources of our infomation. Without reminders that these sources are humans who have the same temptations, ambitions, and goals, we do ourselves an injustice.
Please don't think that I'm saying this is fact. I just want to open a window where there could be some light.... Or it could be hot air.

Re:Unless

[antiMStroll]

60. The number od scientists who signed is 60. The level of 'research' required to unearth this (sentence #1 of the linked article) suggests just how much people here buy into the scientific method.

Re:Unless

[ductormalef]

The parent posts are referring to the number of Nobel laureates(which is 20). However, some of the later posts do just say "scientists." This is a great example of how the original facts get distorted through passing them along.

Re:Unless

[bicho]

bias is relative...

relative to what? I hear you say.

well... that depends... that, too, is relative...

Re:Unless

[Anonymous Coward]

I couldn't agree anymore.

Please don't butcher the English language. "I couldn't agree anymore." is disagreeing with somebody. "I couldn't agree any more." is agreeing with somebody. One single space completely reverses the meaning of that sentence.

Re:Unless

[CBravo]

I'll take my chances with the Nobel prize winners' opinion anyday in my life. Politicians lie all the time, but scientists hardly get their reputation with lying.

A Little Secret

[SpamJunkie]

I'll let you in on a little secret: Bush will be reelected. Reports like this, missing WMD and a monstrous deficit will not be enough to dethrone him.

What you should really be scared of is Bush's next four years. Without the chance of being reelected he's going to push hard for policy that even some of his supporters can't stomach. Think the things listed above are bad? Prepare for worse.

Re:A Little Secret

[Anonymous Coward]

What you should really be scared of is Bush's next four years.

Why worry about just the next four years? This man (or his handlers) has already shown that he will do whatever is necessary to get into office. Why wouldn't he simply use the fact that his party dominates Congress and the judiciary to change the Constitution so that as long as a "state of war" exists elections will be suspended?

George W. Bush may well be remembered by historians (if any historians exist after Bush) as the last President of the United States of America. It may even be his goal.

Advice: If at any point in the next 4 years you're asked to get a "national security" tattoo on the back of your hand, DON'T DO IT. Even if Tim LaHaye says it's okay.

oh, dear.

[Anonymous Coward]

Never mind the fact that you NEED some ionizing radiation in order to get vitamin D.

Yes, we need some. What we don't need is excessive exposure, numbnuts.

Never mind the fact that an absurd amount of chlorine blows off of the oceans each year

so because chlorine blows off of the oceans, we shouldn't be concerned with our ADDING to that amount? It didn't occur to you that maybe the environment is capable of dealing with a certain amount of "natural pollution", but our adding to the pollution is what sends things askew?

Never mind the fact that in the late 50's the ozone hole was gigantic.

give us some links with your claims, numbnuts.

Never mind the fact that a volcanic eruption will spew tons and tons of this shit into the air, far more that we have in the entire history of industry.

Lie. And again, why add to it? What's so wrong about minimizing pollution?

It's clearly due to us. Sure, because that's what greenpeace says.

Yes, because greenpeace is the only one making these claims. Are you willingly ignorant?

A seperate problem.

[Tired_Blood]

What I got from that statement was the following dilemma: Those with ties to the lead industry should have more intimate knowledge of lead, but that limited intimacy also makes them dependent upon the future of that industry. This dependency makes it easy to apply FUD to anything they say.

The question then becomes, who do you trust more? Someone who doesn't necessarily know the topic as well but has nothing to lose/gain or someone who probably knows the topic quite well but has something to lose/gain.

The above is really just a generalization applicable to any industry. Of course, I should eventually RTFA.

Re:A seperate problem.

[LMCBoy]

You don't have to receive research grants from the lead industry to be an expert on lead and its effects on human physiology.

Not even a good troll...

[Anonymous Coward]

He also conflated CFCs with Vulcanic emissions. Not right or wrong enough to be even a clever troll, but the mods fell hook, line, sinker...

Global Warming?

[Anonymous Coward]

Sure the earth is warming. It's been going on since the end of the last ice age. Human CO2 emissions are probably not the cause.

The data is conspicuosly lacking. What's the volume of the earth's atmosphere? How much CO2 do humans produce? Compare this to CO2 emssions from forest fires which burn constantly around the globe, 24x7x365 (x10,000+ years).

Mesopotamia was once fertile. Now it's a desert. Human activity had nothing to do with it.

There's a lead industry?

[slashname3]

What is that? There is a lead industry out there?

What do they promote? More lead in paint?
Whats next TV ads for the lead industry:

"Got lead?"

Flamebait.

[Anonymous Coward]

The Soviets for much of their existence set a national scientific "Truth". This truth was sometimes arbitrarily chosen and sometimes outright false (see Lysenko). If a scientist anywhere disputed this claim, this was subversiveness and dissent and they could be jailed or killed. This went beyond "do not question this". This meant that biology professors were forced to teach this theory despite the obvious holes in it, were meant to do all of their research work assuming Lysenko to be true, and were expected-- if they did research tests of some sort that contradicted the Lysenko theories-- to fudge the numbers from the tests to make them "correct".

The Soviets had a long-running policy of inherently distrusting the concept of a scientist. This does not mean "discouraging or pooh-poohing the results of scientists". This means internally labelling scientists as dangerous, period, putting blanket surveillence on any and all of these potential "threats", and if the surveillence turned up anything that could be construed as "subversive", "correcting the problem".

The Soviets would regularly kidnap scientists, cut off their communication with the outside world and rather than whatever it was said scientists wanted to work on, compel them by force to instead work on chemical weapons development and testing.

You either have a vast wealth of ignorance on this subject, or you have no sense of perspective whatsoever.

Re:Flamebait.

[Elwood P Dowd]

You either have a vast wealth of ignorance on this subject, or you have no sense of perspective whatsoever.

Both could be true, and it still wouldn't be flamebait. You've taken the correct tack: correct him, don't mod him down unless discussing it is a waste of everyone's time.

Since I'm sure many people "have a vast wealth of ignorance on this subject", I don't think it's a waste of everyone's time.

Re:Flamebait.

[nightsweat]

"The truth was sometimes arbitrarily chosen and sometimes outright false"

Like denying global warning?

"biology professors were forced to teach this theory despite the obvious holes in it"

Like creationism being taught in our school districts? We don't yet threaten scientists lives, but we sure as hell threaten their funding and livelihoods. Try being a medical researcher or high-energy physicist who's not working directly towards a patentable product. You are almost certainly going to rely on the government for funding and if you're working on a controversial topic, they are going to try to direct your research.

I may have a "vast wealth of ignorance" but I also have the balls to stand behind my words. Come out from behind the coward cloak and defend yours.

What a surprise!

[Anonymous Coward]

The UCS is a well-known, far-left organization. Its conclusions must be taken with much salt. Would you describe the Heritage Foundation as "independent?" It's no less independent than the UCS.

Anyone that would expect the UCS to have anything at all complimentary to say about Bush would be as delusional as anyone that thinks they are unbiased.

If you disagree, you are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature. It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong.

It's proven, eh?

So where's your control for your experiment? Where's the repeatability?

And scientists can't be biases? Then why did Denmark set up Danish Committees on Scientific Dishonesty? Which, when it reviewed a book by Bjorn Lomborg" The Skeptical Environmentalist" was "clearly contrary to the standards of good scientific practice".

But wait, a review of the DCSD's finding ( see here and here) found that was a "clear mistake" that the committee had failed to give Mr Lomborg an opportunity to defend himself and the DCSD judgment was not backed up by documentation, and was "completely void of argumentation" for the claims of dishonesty and lack of good scientific practice.

The best quote? the committee's judgment had used "condescending and emotional" language

Something like saying If you disagree, you are wrong, perhaps?

Bush's New Economy Business plan

[demachina]

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.

Mod parent up!

[Anonymous Coward]

I am sick of seeing leftist sources quoted as Gospel while anything that is even remotely contrary is dismissed as biased, mindless drivel. The parent quotes a good, factually based analysis of the REAL motivations behind this group. If we're going to question anything posted by a right-of-center source, we should do the same for a way-left-of-center group.

Don't see any Nobels for climatology in that list

[Anonymous Coward]

Richard Smalley won for discovering fullerenes. How's that affect the climate?

Philip Anderson won for "fundamental theoretical investigations of the electronic structure of magnetic and disordered systems".

Paul Berg won "for his fundamental studies of the biochemistry of nucleic acids, with particular regard to recombinant-DNA"

Find any climatologists in that list?

Book reference

[tacokill]

Demon Hauted World - by Carl Sagan

An EXCELLENT book on the state of science in the world. Yea, it's high-level but so is this stuff so it's a perfect reference.

Good call bringing this one up.

How about Paul O'Neill?

[Anonymous Coward]

He said pretty much the same thing in The Price of Loyalty by Suskind. Most meeting were scripted and non-partisan information was not getting to the president. Having served in both the Nixon and Ford administrations he was disturbed that the decision making PROCESS had become almost completely driven by political issues and controlled by Cheney. It's fine if having reviewed the facts you make one decision or another but to not review the facts seemed reckless in his mind.

Re:How about Paul O'Neill?

[Anonymous Coward]

Paul O'Neill has since endorsed the president as being far superior to all of the Democratic contenders. Hence, it's a bad idea for we liberals to use his name in arguments anymore.

Did you not get the memo?

I think it's brilliant.

[Anonymous Coward]

He claims that you can fool people utterly just by making bullshit "scientific-sounding" statements.

He then proves this, by making some totally bullshit "scientific-sounding" statements, and fools the moderators utterly.

A bit meta, but it works.

I'm cunfused

[Entry-Level Loser]

as to why we are all taking the time to bitch about Bush when the majority of us (if not all) aren't in politics (we're all smart enough to know better), so we don't know why the decisions are made. I may or may not agree, but shit, I'm not going to sit here and critize an admidistation who made choices that I don't know all of.

Re:I'm cunfused

[swillden]

I'm cunfused as to why we are all taking the time to bitch about Bush when the majority of us (if not all) aren't in politics (we're all smart enough to know better), so we don't know why the decisions are made. I may or may not agree, but shit, I'm not going to sit here and critize an admidistation who made choices that I don't know all of.

Hell, yeah!

Now *that's* the spirit that made this country great!

Three cheers for apathy!

I'm wondering...

[Bun]

...is there anything in that report about where Iraq's weapons of mass destruction have been hiding?

Deserved perception of liberal bias in academia

[Retired Replicant]

Because academia has embraced political correctness so completely, it has undermined the one-time public perception that academia is unbiased and apolitical. Even if these scientists are right, the obvious politically correct bias of their institutions and academia in general makes it possible for the Bush administration to deflect this criticism by labelling it as another example of left-wing political correctness in academia. By embracing "scientifically challenged" policies like affirmative action (reverse discrimination) and Title IX, tolerating the extreme left-wing faculty rantings about patriarchies and globalization, moral equivalency to support the actions of terrorists, etc., academia has justly earned a reputation as a breeding ground for anti-establishment liberal extremists. Good scientists in academia should demand that their institutions abandon their politically correct ways, because it hurts their own ability to be taken seriously by the public.

Re:Deserved perception of liberal bias in academia

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, I hear they even let negros into them schools!

Oh well, book larnin never was worth much no-how.

Re:Deserved perception of liberal bias in academia

[Retired Replicant]

1. The best person should get the job, regardless of race. 2. Affirmative action merely masks deeper problems by creating double-standards and instituting quotas. 3. Affirmative action casts doubt on the achievements of hard-working, intelligent, successful Black people. It perpetuates the belief that Black people can't make it if they are held to the same standards as White people. 4. Efforts are better put toward improving the educational achievement of Black children in grades K-12 so that they can attain greater success later in life without the need for the crutch of affirmative action.

conspiracy of the stupid

[nutznboltz]

"The strongest conspiracy is the conspiracy of the stupid"

the bushleague rule of study commissions

[swschrad]

if you don't get the results you want, juggle the committee membership and/or shitcan the report and just do what you want anyway.

there are two ideas under the word "evolution"

[raygundan]

There are two separate ideas that fall under the name "evolution." The first is the basic idea of one thing evolving into another-- there are a number of examples that we have watched happen right before our eyes. The common example is the English moth, biston betularia-- whose population was 95% soot-colored after heavy industry in the late 1800s, but was primarily light-colored in the years prior.

The second is the theory that evolution is responsible for everybody being here. This isn't provable, but it seems to be the best no-magical-stuff explanation we have right now. This is where you're right-- evolution-as-creation is a theory.

The idea that evolution happens is a solid fact. We just don't know if it's the only thing at work that could have led to people. (or other various animals and plants)

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:there are two ideas under the word "evolution"

[kisak]

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

So, this conclusive proof has been thouroughly repudiated by science? The same science that has as the best working hypothesis the theory of evolution? Am I reading it correct if you say that current science is right in thouroughly repudiated something you don't want to believe in, and therefor we should not believe in current science?

If you want to discuss a whole body of science like the theory of evolution (with its links in biology, chemistry, physics, geology etc etc), by trying to disprove it by specific examples taken out of context from that science, you are doing yourself and the debate no favor.

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

[caseydk]

Nope, I'm saying that people can twist the interpretation of facts according to their agenda.

This is why non-white people were "proven" to be inferior during the 1700's and 1800's. Obviously this is BS. These "proofs" were developed in accordance with the prevelant beliefs of the day and are unfortunately still believed by some nuts.

I simply listed a few specific cases that I knew about and if you read the post you'll notice that I ask if there are others that I'm missing.

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

[nutshell42]

Articles referenced here only discuss archeoptryx (sp?) as one such transitional species. But one single instance of something is NOT proof

There are no "transitional species". Evolution has no goal therefore there are no "milestone species" with less important "transitional species" between them. Evolution is a constant process (not speedwise, depending on the circumstances changes can be blindingly fast or very, very slow) where every piece of information we find provides just a snapshot of a transition between the state before and the state after.

That whole transitional species argument is utter bs

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

[kisak]

I simply listed a few specific cases that I knew about and if you read the post you'll notice that I ask if there are others that I'm missing.

Many scientist have agendas, things they want to be true, even groups of scientist can have common agendas. But when you are looking for specific cases that fits with what you believe and neglecting all the other evidence, you are no longer doing science. The reason science works, is mostly because of peer review, where such bias is the first thing noticed by experts in the field.

You are right, science has been wrong in the past. Many of the things that are accepted as scientifically sound believes today will be proven wrong in the future. But this does not subtract from what scientist have achived through their method. But if you neglect to listen to all science that does not fit your believes but claim science as your fundament when it fits your world view, then you are doing yourself a disfavor.

Obviously this is BS.

When you start saying that too often, science is not your thing. Many obvious things are not true.

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

[DunbarTheInept]

The demarkation of one species from another is completely an arbitrary human invention. When is a difference merely one of breed or race rather than of species? Basically, no matter how many transitional forms are found, we can still find more transitional forms in-between those transitional forms, and thereby keep cutting the difference in half again and again and again, each time rearranging the taxonomy charts to fit the new transitional species into them. And people will still say "Hey, where's the transitional species??" Because they don't understand that they've created a moving target.

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

[BorgCopyeditor]

The demarkation of one species from another is completely an arbitrary human invention.

So, on your theory, a "horse" and a "donkey" can mate to produce a sexually viable offspring? No?

I guess there is something to this whole species thing, then.

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

[Doomdark]

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

Bear in mind that you are only talking about evolution of Homo sapiens; there are plenty of fossiles for other species. Although there is certainly interest in our species, from "proving" evolution perspective any other species should do just as well as a showcase. And I was under impression there were enough compelling examples there to give plenty of credit to evolution as mechanism.

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

[DunbarTheInept]

When used by people bitching and moaning about "transitional species", they usually aren't using the word "species" in it's scientific sense of things that can mate.

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

[Black Parrot]

> Articles referenced here only discuss archeoptryx (sp?) as one such transitional species. But one single instance of something is NOT proof.

If you don't believe in transitional species, you should read up on aquatic mammals. We've got the full range of adaptions from landlubbers to whales - even if you only consider the living species!

> So called "Conclusive" proof such as Lucy, the Piltdown Man and others have been thouroughly repudiated

Don't bogart that... ... ... LSD tab?

oblig. "illuminatus!" quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Agent Roberts: Wilkins, do you know the difference between Ec science and Non Ec science?

Wilkins: Well um sir I believe that non Ec science includes fertility research, pollution control, other-

Roberts: Dammit Wilkins I'll tell you the truth. There is no such thing as Ec science and Non-Ec science.

Wilkins: But sir the president says-

Roberts: I know damn well what president says I'm telling you right now that those categories are determined completely by politics. There is no difference, scientifically speaking, between reproductive research and agricultural research. They are completely equivalent.

Not the greatest quote, and I mangled it somewhat. But it "just popped in there" in relation to the topic. :) Bush is trying to kill off "non ec" points of view, ie, those he disagrees with.

Quote from the Illuminatus! trilogy. R.A. Wilson and R.A. Schaad (Eris rest his gentlemanly soul).

The Otherside of the Story

[Anonymous Coward]

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/news/nati on/7985452.htm

That article is far more researched then the junk food NYTimes issue. It not only presents more and more specifically of the scientist's arguments it also presents some non-partisan folks who disagree with their assessment.

Of course, it is not partisan to refuse to post a defense of accusations. Or, is it partisan to bring out such a report when you are finding the climate research budget being cut by a tiny fraction from its' 2.2 billion annual budget.

2.2 billion.

Troubled...

[Jackmon]

Why is Bush's crowd always 'troubled' about these things? .. as if they were dainty sensitive little people.

"Ouch, you're troubling my poor little mind with your big sciency words and all your facts."

"Gee, I'm just so troubled that you noticed that we're lying through our teeth. It just hurts so much when point this out to everyone. Please let us deceive in peace so that we won't be troubled."

In the interest of fairness

[The Tyro]

Gore doesn't have a stellar academic record either, it's perhaps even a bit worse than Bush's (Bush at least completed grad school).

Gore made multiple C's at Harvard, also at least one D (in a science class, no less). Even worse, his grad school record from Vanderbilt is miserable... he received failing grades in five out of eight classes in the divinity school over the course of three semesters, and also failed to make it through Vanderbilt's law school (though he apparently left voluntarily to run for congress).

You can read it all in the Widipedia... text of Gore's page is here

Re:In the interest of fairness

[chimpo13]

You forgot to mention that without Gore, you wouldn't be writing this on a web site. ARPANET would still be small. That's a bit further down on the page you cited.

Re:In the interest of fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not sure if you noticed, but Gore is not only not the president, he's not even a current presidential candidate. Pick on Kerry or Edwards, for a more relevent comparison. Or maybe we could use Jimmy Carter.

Re:In the interest of fairness

[Anonymous Coward]

Why the fuck are you bringing up Gore? People are going to die because of the actions of this administration (and Bush Sr.'s, AND CLINTON'S), lots of people. Climate change is going to, as Bart would say, "blow big-time".
Once people start to die and others become displaced people are going to look for someone to blame and it aint gonna be people like Gore. There are still going to be people alive that remember who shot down laws that would have saved lives. They'll be seen as something worse that villains.. probably more like war criminals.

Re:In the interest of fairness

[smchris]

Gore doesn't have a stellar academic record either, it's perhaps even a bit worse than Bush's (Bush at least completed grad school).

So you're thinking it's the decades of alcoholism that gave Dubya his "Deer-in-the-headlights" glare and rambling inability to finish a sentence? I can believe that. He has the same befuddlement that was reported about Grant.

Since he doesn't read a newspaper, what are the odds he'll even hear about this protest?

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:You need to be more of a skeptic

[FreshFunk510]

Laureates in what, though?

Good point (and I was already aware of this). At this point it's up to the reader to read the document. I've personally chosen to assume that they've actually picked Nobel Laureates who are environmental scientists. Call me an optimist but if they chose otherwise then this document would look like a complete joke and somehow I dont' think they'd do that.

Bullshit. They can suffer from ideologies just as much as anyone.

You missed the point. I never said that Nobel Laureates are not ideological. Plus, you took my complete quote out of context. What it said was, "Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought out or created like special think tank groups out there." Now if you parse this statement carefully enough (and it's not too hard) you can see that I'm constrasting Nobel Laureates to think tanks. You completely missed that.

The reason why I do this is because plenty of papers are put out by think tanks with obvious political bias and I can understand the skepticism behind those because anybody can make their own think tank. Not anyone can hire 20 Nobel Laureates to sign on to a scientific paper.

Re:You need to be more of a skeptic

[sholden]

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?

No, but such a prize probably means the scientist actually knows a bit about how to do science, and hence can judge whether censorship and political interference is going on at levels higher than "normal".

They may not know much about the science of lead levels, but they probably do know lots about the normal processes of science, and hence whether a committee is being stacked or a report censored.

Re:You need to be more of a skeptic

[Phronesis]

Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology?

Two of the Nobelists who signed the statement (Rowland and Molina) won their prize for the discovery of stratospheric ozone depletion.Many others are well-known experts on atmospheric science.

Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?

Other signatories won Nobels in medicine. They do know about lead.

More to the point, though, is that the report is not attacking scientific content. It's attacking the politicization of science. The report says nothing about lead levels or climatology. What it says is that genuine scientific reports produced by scientists with expertise in these fields were suppressed or edited to introduce distortions by people from the administration who did not have scientific expertise.

The report also points to examples where people who are nationally recognized as distinguished scientists in their fields were removed from scientific advisory boards and replaced with people who did not have a comparable level of expertise, and that this was often done in apparent violation of the Federal Advisory Committes Act.

The report quotes Lewis Branscomb, whom President Nixon appointed to head the National Bureau of Standards, who later went on to be chief scientist at IBM, and who was named by President Bush to serve on advisory committees on technological approaches to counterterrorism saying that the Bush administration is worse than anything he has seen in his lifetime for subverting the integrity of science.

The report also quotes William Ruckelshaus, who was EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Reagan criticising the way the Bush administration is using political litmus tests to subvert the integrity of science advice. When Reagan's head of EPA thinks you're politicizing science, you know you're in trouble!

Einstein knew zit about marketing

[Pac]

And that is what he is joking about - almost a century is gone and our best scientists still can't come up with a name capable of capturing John and Jane Public's imagination. :)

Yah I never got that one either.

[SmallFurryCreature]

There are enough FACTS about saddam to make him out to be the second coming of hitler. He DID start a horrible war with Iran (with american backing). He did gass koerds (with gas made with western equipment and materials). He did kill anyone who disagreed with him and everyone close to them.

So a very nasty fellow. But focussing on the history of nastyness by Saddam would have prompted question as why nothing was done about it before. Who was supporting him while he was doing it and how the hell he got into power in the first place.

All questions america rather would not answer.

So WMD it was. As a reasonably intelligent person I can see what the real reason was. Saddam was like the guard dog that had snapped and had to be put down. Nasty and perhaps better care should have been given but this is the real world not some pacifists lala land.

For me and apparently you the reasons that saddam was a loose cannon with same very nasty habbits was enough. For many others it wasn't.

How does this relate to the hiding or falsyfing scientific evidence? Very closely. Instead of just saying, well yes lead is bad but so is making thousands of people jobless and we need the lead, they instead make up fancy reports saying lead ain't bad at all. It insults people like you and me but the people who elected him swallow it hook line and sinker.

Oh he was elected by a majority of americans. To remain silent implies consent and the majority of voters remained silent therefore consenting to bush. Still no option, "none of the above", I guess.

Poster should have spellchecked but poster is a lazy bastard

Re:Yah I never got that one either.

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh he was elected by a majority of americans.

I'm pretty sure he lost the popular vote.

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.

Here is the actual report:

[DF5JT]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI _final_fullreport.pdf

Concerned about what?

[Lovelander]

As I recall, the Union of Concerned Scientists are the same group that had the Doomsday Clock back in the eighties. Every time an arms negotiation failed or the U.S. mentioned Star Wars the clock ticked one minute closer to midnight. Problem was that as the clocked ticked passed 11:55PM the scientists were running out of time. They started ticking off fractions of minutes. Funny how the fall of the Berlin wall nor the collapse of the USSR neither caused the clock to tick backwards. Also, we never heard from them during the nineties - funny.

Well...

[bad enema]

The Roman Empire also fell because their leaders kept inbreeding in order to keep maintain the royal blood. Eventually, without (mentally) stable leadership, the empire started to crumble while conspirators plotted to overtake the thrown. The Empire then collapsed/imploded, whichever verb you prefer to describe it.

Re:Well...

[Anonymous Coward]

No one thing destroyed the Roman Empire. It was death by many scratches. But even this statement needs to be taken with a dose of reality. Rome is still with us -- in our language, our customs, our government. Greece is still with us. So is Egypt.

We can also argue that inbreeding is still going on. The Bushes are related to the Churchills and the Kings of England. The current Democratic candidates have ties to European royalty too. Though America believes that merit can get you in the White House, it's not all that true. The US is closer to the pharaohs of Egypt than to a true democracy.

Waxing Philisophical

[Art_XIV]

Facts are one thing.

Where we humans, even scientist-humans, get tripped-up is in the assessment, analysis and interpretation of facts, the consequences of facts, and in deciding what, if anything, should be done in response to facts.

meanwhile..

[Anonymous Coward]

...those with functioning minds recognize that these are not the only two sides, and that they are both made up of extremists.

I'll give the git a spoon, you grow a brain

[Anonymous Coward]

Ummm, the big reason for playing with the U.N. Inspectors was the fact that the U.S. Representatives were reporting back to the CIA, and not about WMD's.
The U.S. would have had the spies shot for espionage, had things been the other way around

Utterly irrelevant to Saddam's non-compliance with something like 17 UN mandates that he comply with the cease-fire conditions that halted the first war (note that I didn't say "ended" because the first war never ended because Saddam never held up his end of the cease-fire negotiations).

What did Saddam expect? A bunch of foreigners would comb his entire country looking for his most prized and hidden weapons and would not be spies? If the person you responded to needs a spoon, you need a brain.

You're saying that Saddam couldn't agree to a cease-fire agreement because he might be spied on? What other brainless forms of apology for a mass-murdering thug can you pull out of your ass?

Damn, spelling errors all over that last post.

[bad enema]

Gotta make a habit of using the preview button...

Why that look?

[tilleyrw]

Take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

• Country is capitalist. (Money Rule$!)
  
• Criminals (GWB) evolve to capitalize on a corrupt political system.
  
• Q.E.D., $pecial Intere$t$ a$$ume control of $ection$ of the government.
  

Where is the speedbump in the road to understanding?

A pox on both sides

[HarveyBirdman]

What I read of the report so far is the typical "pass this law and save X million lives" and so on. Yet every time in cases like this, when someone traces the numbers back to their sources, they find weak correleations put forth as cause & effect, dubious computer models, poorly conducted experiements and, in some cases (like the power lines = cancer scare a few years back), complete fabrication, or a negative result massaged to sound positive (or vice versa).

This is junk science Bush-style versus junk science Union OF Concerned Scientists-style, folks. Nothing important to be seen here. Move along.

Watch the Penn & Teller Bullshit! episode about second hand smoke for a good example of all this.

Re:A pox on both sides

[El_Ehmenopio]

You have it half right. The UCS is not Junk science. Their not fringe either, they are very very mainstream.

It's called "the bandwagon"

[xeeno]

And it's exactly the same thing that happens in modern science today. If you say something unpopular then people try to shut you up, no matter how correct you are.

But that's okay, no amount of modding will prevent me from saying it.

Why do you exclude slashdot?

[SmallFurryCreature]

Slashdot certainly has its share of sensationalist headlines that are usually just over the top but sometimes completly different from what the actually linked stories tell. As for some of the comments by the originals posters. Ouch. Tabloid doesn't even begin to describe it.

The problem you describe is however hardly isolated to america. It happens around the world. Here in holland we used to have an tv news program at 8 o'clock on the first channel (we only had one when I grew up then two and now three). It was reasonably good proffesional guy in suit telling the news headlines with a bit behind. Not terribly deep but you got what had happened and could read the indepth stuff in next days newspaper.

What has changed. Well first of all it has gotten shorter not just in pure time but the opening jingle and ending credits have become longer, they have a summary at the beginning and end wich each take about a minute from what is now 15-20 minutes. They extended weather and now always have some human intrest stuff. I remember that during heavy suicide bombings in Israel they had a 5 minute piece on the royal family opening some art show. Good grief. The final killer is that they took the presenter from the childeren news (used to be very good, the biggest real news stories explained a bit more with simpler language or complex words explained) and got all the other presenters to use her language.

To describe the news here now is impossible. CNN is better. At least they don't talk to me in kid speak. Americans complain that american news is biased. It is perhaps. So is dutch news. Doesn't matter if the news is pro-israel or pro-palenstine. They are both biased and not telling the thruth the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

You know what the really funny thing is? All this dumbing down was to get more viewers. Tiny little detail? The old news was often the most watched program, not well watched. ONE in the ratings. Now viewing figures are down. So they are dumbing down even more to attract more viewers.

Excuse me while I go bang my head against the wall.

Re:Why do you exclude slashdot?

[Lebofsky]

I excluded slashdot for two reasons. One, just to be funny/ironic (which may not have come across as I refuse to use those sideways smiley faces). Two, because while slashdot is riddled with misinformation as much as any news source, it allows the public to respond in kind. I respect that, even though my scant few postings are usually met with flames.

- Lebofsky

Re:Why do you exclude slashdot?

[Rotten168]

And that public is hideously misinformed 80 percent of the time. So sad. :)

Flamebait???

[HarveyBirdman]

I keeping with the scientific principles everyone here claims to adore, I challenge someone to cite a reference for a claim, and that gets modded flamebait? Nice.

A special interest group

[b-baggins]

People,

The Union of Concerned Scientists is a special interest group with a political agenda. It's not a merit association. Any scientist can join as long as he pays the dues. The scientists who belong to this interest group join because they all share the SAME political philosophy.

There is no difference between this group and PETA except for the knee scraping worship they are given by idiots who think that a PhD and Nobel Prize Winner after your name somehow makes you infallible.

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.

Re:A special interest group

[El_Ehmenopio]

Right and Wrong Anyone, not even scientist can join the UCS, but unless you are a scientist, you won't be doign scince. As for meritocracy? hmmm, B.s. M.s. PHD. oh yeah, they already have one! It's called a civilized academic society it's why in the U.S. you will be sued for falsly calling yourself a doctor and practicing medicine. BTW. These "members" may have better credentials than you do. (If you have a Nobel prise I will eat a printout of this remark) I agree with you though, that PETA is annoying. PETA serves only to get hot chicks to become aware of sociaol problems. Eventually some grow up and date scientists

Not fat, sugar

[pommiekiwifruit]

The WHO said that eating too much sugar is bad for you. The sugar companies told the US administration to correct the WHO - a high sugar diet is great for you, and the proof is in the fit healthy people you see in the television adverts for candy!

Re:Not fat, sugar

[quonsar]

The WHO said that eating too much sugar is bad for you.

no, they specifically said they hope to die before they get old. sugar never entered into it, that would have been the 1910 fruitgum company anyway.

And here's your flame:

[Anonymous Coward]

"Scientists are like assholes, everyone's got one."

Thank you for the deep insight, scientist.

Given the intellectual capacity you demonstrate, might I suggest that you run in the next Republican primary? You're a cert to win.

BUSH, he got lots of Ds

[Anonymous Coward]

An interview with a former prof said bush got a D in his class. (english)

Also, there are EASY classes and then there are HARD classes. I could have had a 4.0 if I picked the "right" school and took weak classes from easy profs.

In fact, when I took physics from a community college it was far harder than the one the other prof taught. (this prof had a son at MIT and make the course the same---the other did not give a dam)

Science _is_ faith

[Anonymous Coward]

In my opinion, science _is_ faith or religion.

What do we _really_ know? All we know we have learned through personal experience and scientific theories, our teachers, books, multimedia and so on.

Theories are made by teachers. Teachers are teached themelves. Books are written by teachers. Multimedia is made by people who are teached.

All we can say is: We _believe_ that all our scientific theories, teachers, books and multimedia contents are trustworthy. The best source of real knowledge we have are trustworthy witnesses. The more witnesses the better.

Everyone of us really knows only a very small piece of the universe. Whole science is nothing but a set of tiny pieces of a big puzzle reearched by scientists who only know some (part) of these pieces. But not anyone on the planet knows _every_ piece of this puzzle. Everybody must trust others that they really know their parts of the puzzle. Isn't that faith?

See Evolution theory. No one in history has observed even one tiny step of evolution. But nearly everyone on the planet "knows" that evolution happens. There is no proof but faith. We laugh about people of middle ages who believed earth to be a plate. Maybe in 200 years or so people will laugh about us believing in evolution.

Re:Science _is_ faith

[Anonymous Coward]

The best source of real knowledge we have are trustworthy witnesses. The more witnesses the better.


No, the best source of real knowledge is understanding for yourself what a theory is saying. I *know* that 2 x 2 = 4. I believe that electromagnetic fields exist, but I can only infer that from observing some phenomena and listening to a teacher.

No one in history has observed even one tiny step of evolution.

Bollocks, just work in a microlab for a few weeks. "That test looks wrong", "Oh, it's just variant xyz, same as the regular bug but it can metabolise sorbitol".

Re:Science _is_ faith

[Anonymous Coward]

> Bollocks, just work in a microlab for a few weeks. "That test looks wrong", "Oh, it's just variant xyz, same as the regular bug but it can metabolise sorbitol".

The scientist modified some genes - he "reprogrammed" the bug's organism. That's not evolution, that's creation.

Evolution says: monkeys became men. Proof?

Evolution before Darwin

[tgibbs]

There is no such thing as the "fact of evolution". You should really check your sources on that one. It's called a theory for a reason.

Actually, evolution was accepted as fact even before Darwin advanced a theory to explain it. Before Darwin, there actually were real scientists (as opposed to religious ideologues masquerading as scientists) who took creation seriously as a theory of the origin of species. But even before Darwin, they had rejected the Biblical notion of creation as patently inconsistent with the data that clearly demonstrated evolution over time. The creationist theories before Darwin tended to postulate multiple creation events at different times and places. Of course, after Darwin, all the real biologists embraced the new theory, leaving behind the Biblical zealots who wouldn't even accept creation theories that didn't agree with Genesis.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[caseydk]

If "evolution was accepted as fact" why would "Darwin advanced a theory to explain it"?

It is a THEORY or a FACT. It cannot be both.

The passing of genetic material and traits through offspring is obviously a fact. I don't dispute this at all. This has been demonstrated and seen time and time again. This is called "micro-evolution".

If you are speaking of the transformation of species into another species, we have what is generally classified as "macro-evolution". This is the theory part which I was pointing out.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[Lars T.]

If I have to chose between a "Theory" that agrees with facts, and a "Fact" that relies on belief, I know which side to take.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[tgibbs]

If "evolution was accepted as fact" why would "Darwin advanced a theory to explain it"?

For the same reason that Newton and Einstein advanced theories to explain gravity. It wasn't that anybody doubted that things tended to fall down, they just didn't understand why. Similarly, scientists knew that life had evolved over time before Darwin came along; they just didn't have a good explanation for it.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[Merk]

Gravity.

When I drop a ball, it goes down. Gravity is a fact. Do you dispute this?

Theory A says that there are "gravitons" that are exchanged between particles that cause them to move together. Theory B says that it's the work of elves. Theory C says that it's actually an unbalanced nuclear charge. These are all theories about why the ball falls when I drop it.

Before Darwin, evolution had been observed, it just hadn't been explained. Darwin simply had a theory about what caused the observed fact.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[DunbarTheInept]

Micro-evolution: All forms of evolution that happen in a short enough timespan that we can see them happen and prove they are happening to the religious zealots.
Macro-evolution: All forms of evolution that take long enough that they haven't been directly observed yet and have to be surmised through historical evidence.

The border between the two will move as the religious zealots see fit.

Re:Evolution before Darwin

[fenix down]

Of course it can be both. Facts are things that are true, theories are things that allow us to predict facts without actually having to prove each of them individually.

The facts are that my monitor doesn't move when I blink. The theory is that my monitor doesn't move when I blink. It's just a theory when I use it to extrapolate something.

Re: Evolution before Darwin

[Black Parrot]

> It is a THEORY or a FACT. It cannot be both.

"It" is two separate things, which have similar names and therefore greatly confuse people who have been too busy trying to deny "it" to pause and think about what "it" actually is.

> The passing of genetic material and traits through offspring is obviously a fact. I don't dispute this at all. This has been demonstrated and seen time and time again. This is called "micro-evolution".

> If you are speaking of the transformation of species into another species, we have what is generally classified as "macro-evolution". This is the theory part which I was pointing out.

FYI, you are disputing the facts rather than the theory. You don't even make reference to the theory.

Re: Evolution before Darwin

[Black Parrot]

> Actually, evolution was accepted as fact even before Darwin advanced a theory to explain it. Before Darwin, there actually were real scientists (as opposed to religious ideologues masquerading as scientists) who took creation seriously as a theory of the origin of species. But even before Darwin, they had rejected the Biblical notion of creation as patently inconsistent with the data that clearly demonstrated evolution over time.

FWIW, the last major geologist holding out in favor of a global flood conceded that it was incompatible with the geological evidence in a famous speech given (IIRC) in 1820. (And he was the laggard.) After that, it was impossible for scientists to accept the Bible as undeniable evidence for anything.

I haven't read up on it, but lots of people claim that creationism AWKIToday was started by the Jehovah's Witnesses in the 20th Century. If so, then the creationist "scientists" of today do not actually spring from the same intellectual tradition that influenced scientists before the 19th Century. (I suppose that's what you mean when you call them religious ideologues masquerading as scientists.)

Yeah, yeah, yeah. Here are all of the responses

[SensitiveMale]

Bush is stupid
No WMDs ever existed
Bush can't speak correctly
Ashcroft is stripping every liberty we have
Bush is evil
Reagan was stupid
Global warming is happening right now
These scientists are not bias at all.

Before you flame-bait me, ALL of the above WERE responses by people in this thread.

Talk about distortion and bias...

[johnlcallaway]

This group is just another environmental group. Look at the description of their e-mail newsletters:

• 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 ... well nothing because even our feces impact the environment and we won't even be allowed to take a crap anymore.

Yawn ... nothing more to see here ... move along...

Re:Talk about distortion and bias...

[johnlcallaway]

Wow ... I got trolled. First one ever after several years as a Slashdot reader.

I guess this is what happens when you post facts that oppose the views of the moderator. Troll it down so no one reads it.

He must be an environmentalist too.

Re:Talk about distortion and bias...

[idsofmarch]

So what we want is a group that wants the exact opposite of the things in the Union of Concerned Scientists. And yeah, human feces affects the environment, wow can't believe it. Have about 10 tons of its (the average amount moved through a city sewer in less than an hour) dumped on your front yard and see how long it takes to affect your environment. The UCS isn't an objective bunch, but that last comment was just stupid.

Re:Talk about distortion and bias...

[johnlcallaway]

Now I'm offtopic.

Let's recap ...

• The article I responded to discussed a statement from a 'group of concerened scientists' about how the Bush administration was systematically censoring and directing scientific data, specifically many that dealt with environmental v/s industry issues.
• I responded with some information that questioned the ability of this group to be unbiased, that information being that their web site is heavily slanted towards environmentalist issues of the type the Sierra Club is known for. The intent being to show that ifPresident Bush may slant science towards industry, in my opinion this 'Union of Concerned Science' is probably just as guilty slanting it the other way and as such their statement does not carry any weight. It is the balancing act of the two groups that makes us strong, and a nation lead by only environmentalists would be just as bad as a nation lead only be industry interests.
• The moderated response was that I was a troll.
• When I then raised the opinion that I was moderated as a troll because the moderator might be an environmentalist, and hence biased and likely to slant the facts, I was moderated as off topic.

I guess that this string of postings has proven my point far better than my original post. That we all slant things in the direction we want, some are just better at it than others.

And that one group whining about another group slanting facts to suit their purpose is really what we all do, so just STFU.

Bush at Yale

[shrubya]

Daddy GHW Bush and Grampa P Bush were Yale alums. George Jr was a legacy with dubious qualification and modest test scores.

GWB was born on third base and claims he hit a triple. How this makes him the candidate of morality and trustworthiness, I cannot understand.

USSR tried bad science, it failed...

[Anonymous Coward]

Back in the 1970's, there was a USSR scientist who had weird biological theories that really hindered work done in that country by real biologists...this is just the same sort of thing where the people in power who control all the purse strings, if they have some sort of ideological (or in the case of the bush administration, losts of ideillogical axes to grind (no stem cell research, no nanotechnology assembler research (what do they think "builds" people and everything else inside cells "magic fairies or just a box that says "things happen in here that is driven by our GOD (christian) and we don't want to know any more")) you would think that we still live in the middle ages when the church dictated what went on in the world and what you could think and whatever you thought, it had better tow the party line, oh and if you could please support the current wars against all the unwashed heathens non-believers out there...It also mirrors what happened in the early 90's when the first Bush administration had NASA reject any proposals for SETI research...of course nowadays, the very popular SETI@home inerest shows that there are lots of people who don't buy this head-in-the-sand mentality and just look at all the current research supporting the possiblilty of life on other worlds (rover and opportunity on mars for instance), and the research showing atmospheres on other planets that could support life...you won't get that from any religions who veiw earth as the only planet with life on it...

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

[mikerich]

Back in the 1970's, there was a USSR scientist who had weird biological theories that really hindered work done in that country by real biologists..

You're thinking of Trofim Lysenko who wasn't a trained scientist, but his 'theories' seemed to fit in with Communist dogma - so he attracted the approval of Stalin. Lysenko got his ideas from a Russian form of Lamarckism known as Michurianism. Essentially it was the old falsehood that said such nonsense as the children of a giraffe have longer necks because their parents stretched to reach leaves on trees.

Lysenko came to prominence in 1948 when he declared Mendelist evolution to be reactionary, decadant and its proponents to be enemies of the Soviets. Other scientists knew what that meant and on whose behalf he was speaking (Uncle Joe) and quickly fell behind the Party line. He and his theories basically held sway in the Eastern Bloc until 1965 when Kruschev had Lysenko denounced and returned the Soviet Union to the orthodox view of evolution.

But of course Lysenko's theories were in sway during the pivotal discoveries of DNA and how it affected genetics. So the Soviet Union fell behind at a vital moment and never recovered.

It's an extreme form of the current situation in the US, where any old nonsense can be promoted by politicians to keep their vested interests (be they oil, lead or Christian fundamentalism) happy. Sadly the same is starting to happen over here in the UK, where our non-scientific Prime Minister refuses to condemn schools that teach creationism over evolution.

Best wishes,
Mike.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

There is more evidence for creationism than you would be willing to concede. Evolution doesn't even follow the second law of thermodynamics. Please explain how life evolved from the simple to the complex, while in the universe - matter is decomposing (dark energy anyone)? Anonymous Coward

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

[matfud]

matter is not decomposing. matter changes to energy, energy changes to matter. It happens all the time.

a) You say god created the universe.
b) I say the universe materialised from within the ear wax of old Mrs pike at number 42. And only this very morning.

Which of these do you believe in? They have as the same degree of merit.

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.

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

[politovski]

don't forget that thermodynamics, by definition,
applies to closed systems, of which biological
organisms are not (you did eat breakfast and
take in outside matter and energy today did you
not?). Total BS argument.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

As I am the Anonymous Coward who wrote this little piece - I have to confess - it was meant as bit of a troll ;-) Gee, you guys are sooo much smarter than the creationists. The creationists should just send you a lump of coal, some water and a lighter - you can send them back a living one celled organism ;-)

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

[Anonymous Coward]

> You're thinking of Trofim Lysenko who wasn't a
> trained scientist, but his 'theories' seemed to
> fit in with Communist dogma - so he attracted
> the approval of Stalin

Is this kinda like software that really isn't
the best but conforms to a licensing dogma
put forth by Stallman and the FSF?

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

[Bush Pig]

I'd be very interested (and quite suprised) to see _any_ evidence for creationism. And no, I won't accept the King James bible as evidence.

History of the Union of Concerned Scientists

[mkw]

Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:

• The USC Top Victories for 2003
• The USC Mission Statement
• The USC Founding Document

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed

Re:History of the Union of Concerned Scientists

[0x0d0a]

To be fair, the Bush administration also takes fairly anti-environment stances, and a centrist is probably more likely to accuse them of fudging data to allow environmental abuse than, say, a Gore administration.

What bias? lalalala...

[Anonymous Coward]

"Liberal (aka Socialist) organization opposes Bush" would have been a somewhat more accurate description. Then again, this is /., so I'm not surprised.

Re:Don't see any Nobels for climatology in that li

[El_Ehmenopio]

Wow. you really are the pro-choice poster child are'nt you? THERE IS NO NOBEL PRIZE FOR CLIMATOLOGY.

Modded down by politically correct academician

[Retired Replicant]

I guess a liberal extremist in academia didn't like me trying to clue good scientists at academic insitutions into tha fact that their politically-correct extremist colleagues are creating a PR problem for academia that hurts their own ability to be taken seriously by the public.

Global Warming, all the way

[rock_climbing_guy]

1975 Newsweek article with alarmist environmentalism

Pay no attention to the domain; this transcript is widely available if you just do a Google search. The scoop is, back in 1975, environmental scientists were playing chicken llittle telling us that the world was threatened by global cooling. We're still here, aren't we? Now we're all going to die because of global warming.

Re:Global Warming, all the way

[uncadonna]

Thanks for the link to the 1975 Newsweek article. I read the article twice and didn't see any "alarmist environmentalism". I saw very tentative staements from the founders of a science that has made major progress in the intervening years.

Thirty years of satellite observations, computer advances and improvements in theory go into current thinking that didn't figure in 1975. That said, nothing I saw in the article seems particularly alarmist or ideological.

The period of concern over "global cooling" was brief and driven by intuition. Pretty much as soon as they started doing the numbers, most of the serious physicists who were to be the founders of physical climatology agreed that greenhouse warming was probably a bigger concern. See Science, vol 193 pp 447 ff, Aug 6, 1976 , pretty much right after the Newsweek article.

Fairness?

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore isn't holding any federal level office right now. Gore isn't spending us into a huge deficit. Gore isn't involved with America's current "energy policy". Why even mention Gore for any reason other than to try to reduce criticism of Bush?

and for the rebuttal to the rebuttal...

[Anonymous Coward]

...go to www.lomborg.com to see replies to the various branches of the Holy Church of Luddites.

You fall into the obvious trap

[Illissius]

If all they want to do is get reelected, and you give them a 10 year term, then they will spend 10 years trying to get reelected.

"Majority..."

[schmaltz]

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

Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.

Re:"Majority..."

[Dun Malg]

Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.

Sheesh. Give the minority/majority thing a rest, willya? Presidents are frequently elected with a minority of votes. Clinton won with 43.3% in '92. Electoral politics are pretty much rigged anyway, so the fact that SCOTUS decided to call 2000 for the side that would end electoral uncertainity fastest shouldn't be surprising.

Re:"Majority..."

[ksheff]

A minority of the electorate put Clinton in office both times too. The SC just froze the state of vote manipulation in FL.

Re:"Majority..."

[taion]

Clinton at least had a plurality. Bush didn't.

Re:"Majority..."

[F34nor]

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

Re:"Majority..."

[Dun Malg]

Clinton at least had a plurality. Bush didn't.

That makes it better? That he said he loved us before he fucked us, while Bush didn't? My entire point is that popular vote is to a large degree irrelevant because the system has been manipulated such that our choice is to vote "red" or vote "blue". The fact is that the "Red Party" and "Blue Party" have totally dominated politics and no longer have to appeal to important things like our basic rights as humans, but rather just play The Election Game, wherein they bandy about slogans and hold up poster-children and hope their product marketing is better than the other team's. I won't say that individual votes don't count, but they are essentially irrelevant.

Re:"Majority..."

[Rasta Prefect]

Obligatory election year post: No, a minority of the electorate voted for Bush, and a majority of Supreme Court justices finished it off by appointing him president.

Ok, since you apparently can't let go of this. Do you actually _know_ what the Supreme Court decision that gave Bush the election was? Do you know what they actually decided, without consulting Google?

Bush won under to rules that existed. Deal, or try to change the rules.

Re:"Majority..."

[hambonewilkins]

That he said he loved us before he fucked us, while Bush didn't?

Yup, I too am glad we traded jobs and a prosperous economy for a president who doesn't engage in consentual sex with a woman who isn't his wife.

It was a good trade.

Re:"Majority..."

[Dun Malg]

Yup, I too am glad we traded jobs and a prosperous economy for a president who doesn't engage in consentual sex with a woman who isn't his wife. It was a good trade.

Pffff.... Forget it, man. If you think it was policy from either occupant of the white house that caused either the economic boom of the late 90's or the subsequent crash of said boom in 2000, you've bought into the whole politics-as-marketing sham already.

Re:"Majority..."

[Anonymous Coward]

except that an unnecessary war that costs the united states $87 billion can cause economic problems for the country. so i'd say that yes, bush did have something to do with the bad economy. and how about the tax cuts without increasing revenue for the country? that makes a whole ton of economic sense. let's fuck the citizens until every lsat one of them is unemployed except for the wealthy. send all american jobs overseas, the country won't suffer, it helps the economy because it costs the american corporations less to do business that way. yeah makes total sense. fuck bush and his completely idiotic sense of how to run the country. he's a fucking moron, and has proven it over and over and over again through his policies that just don't seem to work.

Re:"Majority..."

[Moofie]

Yeah, because both George Bush and Bill Clinton were totally responsible for the economic performance of this country.

Right. What color is the sky on your planet?

Re:"Majority..."

[TheAncientHacker]

What a load of bull. You've completely bought into Bush's "whatever bad happens, it isn't my fault but anything good is totally to my credit" crap. If you even had a clue about economics or political science you'd know that the economy is statistically correlated to the party in the White House.

When there's a Democrat in, the economy improves, deficits drop and spending either decreases or slows in growth.

When a Republican's in the White House the economy tanks, jobs growth drops or goes negative, deficits soar, spending wildly increases.

Don't believe it? Go look up the data yourself and stop believing the lies that Bush and his group of thieves have fed you.

Armageddon

[Archalien]

This only confirms my fears. I'm just hoping that Bush isn't in office if an asteroid ever comes our way. Can you imagine how many oil drillers he knows that look like Bruce Willis? Man, that would be some nightmare.

It's pronounced "Du - mas".

[uxo]

There are actually three pronunciation for the word "nuclear" in the dictionary, and "nukular" is one of them.
Repeat after me: "Texas, it's a whole other country."

Re:It's pronounced "Du - mas".

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, right - you mean the "disapproved of" alternate pronunciation that's referred to. Gotcha.

valid

[Anonymous Coward]

Believing that creation explains the way we got here better than evolution does is not unscientific. Denying that any sort of evolution happens is unscientific, but that doesn't make creation unscientific.

Creation hasn't been proven scientifically, but neither has evolution in the sense that we evolved from other life forms, or that the world originated through evolution. Studying the world and believing that the evidence points to creation is not invalid. It's an interpretation of the evidence.

Granted, some have gone too far and decided that since the world was created then no form of evolution could ever be true. But that subset doesn't make the whole.

That being said, I'm making no defense of Bush here necessarily. That's not my point.

Re:valid

[BigBadBri]

No - believing in creation is in itself scientific - it is completely untestable, since however far back the evolutionary trail is found to go, there is always room for some mystical nonsense about a creator, and thus creationism is, in its purest sense, unfalsifiable.

To be scientific, a theory must be able to be proven wrong by facts - this does not happen with creationism, since creationists always retreat back into faith.

And don't try to claim that your point of view is valid just because it's yours - it isn't - it's stupid, unscientific and wrong.

Re:valid

[Black Parrot]

> Believing that creation explains the way we got here better than evolution does is not unscientific.

I suppose it depends on what you mean by "unscientific". Given that belief in creationism is neither arrived at nor supported by science, I would call it "unscientific". Or at least "non-scientific". Of course, that's not at all the same thing as saying that it's wrong.

> Creation hasn't been proven scientifically, but neither has evolution in the sense that we evolved from other life forms, or that the world originated through evolution.

FYI, the theory of evolution does not attempt to explain the origin of the world.

> Studying the world and believing that the evidence points to creation is not invalid. It's an interpretation of the evidence.

But it's not science, and never will be science, since creationism is compatible with any observation. It's like saying "gravity works the way it does because something makes it work that way". If we suddenly discovered some surprising new fact about gravity that 'theory' wouldn't need to change at all, because it doesn't actually say anything. Same with creationism.

(Lots of creationists do make specific claims, but they are always arbitrary claims about the 'facts' of history rather than things that fall out from the non-existent 'theory' of creationism. Also, AFAIK, all the creationist claims that impinge upon reality have been shown to be wrong.)

be reasonable

[bmajik]

Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?

A: Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens

I beleive the president has said "we haven't found them yet, we're still looking"

Yet people keep asking "where are they ?"

and the answer is still "we haven't found them yet, please stop fucking pestering us"

and then the question changes: "well, gosh, if you cant find any, wasn't invading iraq wrong ? wasn't it all a sham ?"

and then the answer changes (because the question did) to "saddam needed to go and you and i both know it, so stop playing political games"

Reporters are complete assholes. Reporters get "noticed" by being assholes. If you don't ask the question that stumps or challenges the speaker, you're a nobody. It doesn't matter if your question means anything or not; the current political arena makes it unacceptable for the president to say "shut up with your trolling bullshit, already, if you're so goddamned smart why don't you come up here and tell us your error free grand plan"

thats exactly what i'd answer; maybe thats one reason im not a successful politician :)

Re:be reasonable

[Anonymous Coward]

error free grand plan?

answer: dont invade countries that arent a major threat just because they have oil and will make your buddies rich in contracts.

answer: don't hide behind "but he's EVIL I tell you, EVIL". there are plenty of evil people out there, we dont have the time and money to defeat them all. Apparently we dont even have time/money to finish the job right in Iraq.

answer: finish the job in afghanistan, where the REAL threat STILL remains. Where is OBL "dead or alive"?

Re:be reasonable

[Steve525]

Very off-topic, but what the hell...

The problems I have with the above are

Number one: Even though the answer changed because the question did, it still doesn't answer really the question. If it was a sham, admit it, or at least admit your mistakes.

Number two: If the answer is truly "Saddam needed to go and you and I both know it", or as the real quote says "Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens", then why wasn't this the justification for going to war in the first place. The answer is, of course, that there wouldn't have been a lot of support for starting a war on this basis. There are a lot of evil people in the world, some of whom are in positions of power. I don't think most Americans feel it is our job to go around the world and take these people out, except perhaps under extreme circumstances.

Now maybe Saddam was evil enough to meet these circumstances, but that wasn't the justification that was made to the American people. Instead, the justification was that Saddam has or will shortly have WMDs and we are in immediate peril because of this. There is a big difference between these two justifications, and I doubt we'd have invaded Iraq if the original justification for the invasion was simply "Saddam needs to go".

I believe the country was intentionally mislead to start a war, and I am very upset by this. I am even more upset that the country is not up in arms about this.

I am not that upset that the war happened. It may, in fact, have been the right thing to do. (We really won't know until years after a stable and reasonable government replaces the one we kicked out). But in all likelyhood the current administration distorted and misrepresented facts in order to force it's will upon the American people. (See a pattern here. Maybe this isn't so off topic after all). I'm sure all administrations do this to some degree, but the current administration seems out of hand.

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

[FreshFunk510]

To keep it short, yes, I acknowledge that these are scientific interpretations and observations and not necessarily "facts". With that said, I still stick by my statement.

Re:Fact or fiction

[bluenawab]

this isn't only about global warning, but many other things such as lead poisoning. so, even if we leave global warming aside, of which none of us can 100% claim the truth, i think there is enough substance to the report to actually start worrying about the trend.

Re:Fact or fiction

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places[...]. 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.

Being at MIT, I have a bone to pick with this chap...

I guess I would have to say that I know some of this from data I have personally obtained and analysed. I have seen the warming trends in several ice cores and coral samples I've looked at.

I have also tried my hand at modeling, and I'd have to say that despite everything, we really do have a decent understanding of things like radiative transfer. We make some pretty serious approximations when it comes to cloud models and ocean transport, but the radiative forcing is decently well-known.

Can you provide a model that reproduces the observed warming trend given the observed increase in CO2, but where the warming ISN'T from the CO2 and associated radiative forcing?

There is an OBSERVED (historical as well as current data) correlation between CO2 levels and temperature. We know that we are causing CO2 levels to increase (Keeling curve). Models can explain the correlation rather well. Given those three items, what would you, good scientist that you are, conclude?

I understand you're being a good scientist who's always willing to admit that you don't know something, but come on - some scientific conclusions are more reliable than others.

Re:Fact or fiction

[kisak]

There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur.

The question we are disussing here is if this administration (or any other government for that matter) is making room for and encouraging a healthy debate. The 20 Noble prize winners claim that the Bush adminstration is not doing that, and worse even consciencely trying to put a stop to healthy debates on some topics, which is very disturbing.

If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.

It is more rational to believe scientist with expertise on a subject than lobby groups, either from the left or right, what ever the subject. A belief in science is much less dogmatic than a belief in a political movement or a religion, which is true just from the meaning of the word dogmatic.

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:Fact or fiction

[Cyberherbalist]

Lots of "facts" turn out to be false. Massive deforestation, for example. The rates of deforestation alleged for the Amazonian rain forest turn out to be extremely overstated. Far from being denuded, the US is undergoing a turnaround in forest cover, and now has more acres of forest than in 1900.

Climate swings in the past 11,000 years have been enormous, and we are actually colder now than most of those past years -- all without help from modern civilization there was massive global warming, with a sustained global temperature of over what we now have.

Mars turns out to be experiencing global warming as well! All without help from pesky humans and their SUV's.

What is the common factor between Terra Firma and the Red Planet? Why, the Sun, of course! It's long been recognized that Old Sol is a variable star. Mars, without the enormous heat sinks that Earth has (oceans, thick atmosphere), would naturally experience wilder swings, as pointed out here.

So, can we give it a rest about our puny CO2 emissions causing the warming?

Re:Fact or fiction

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Deforestation is just a myth to you then.

And the problem is still ongoing. It's not like people are pulling these numbers out of their ass, in 30 years we have managed to take out 15% of all the rain forests in Brazil. That's not opinion, there were 2 million square miles of forest when we started, 85% of it remains. You can see deforestation from space. You can drive along and see where forest was and grazeland, farmland, or (more often) wasteland is today.

The problem is bad enough that Brazil's government is concerned. It is only active law enforcement that keeps commercial interests from denuding the forest at a faster rate. That again, is not opinion of the some nature head. This is from Brazil's own government. You know, the people that live there.

Re:Fact or fiction

[Phronesis]

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

Let's recognize that the UCS report on scientific integrity does not say that Global Warming exists. It does not pronounce on scientifit truth. What it says is that the Bush administration is hurting scientific integrity by politicizing the scientific process. Specifically, there are two accusations: That the administration is suppressing scientific reports from government scientists when it doesn't like the conclusions; and using political litmus tests when appointing scientists to committees that the law says must represent balanced viewpoints.

The problem is not that the Bush administration comes to incorrect scientific conclusions---it's that the Bush administration is preventing the public from learning about scientific work conducted by the government whose conclusions don't fit the administration's political agenda, and that the Bush administration is trying to bias the scientific process to support conclusions it has drawn in advance of the research.

Whether or not you agree that global warming is occurring, you should be concerned if a political litmus test by either the right or the left is used to choose which scientists get to participate in the debate.

Re:Fact or fiction

[Noren]

Holy post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy, Batman!

Can you provide a model that reproduces the observed global cooling trend from 1938 to 1977 given the observed increase in CO2 during that period, but where the cooling occurs IN SPITE OF the increased CO2 and associated radiative forcing?

Why was the earth hotter 125000 years ago than it is now, given that there was no significant anthropogenic CO2 at that time?

If those results do not naturally result from your model, perhaps you might consider that the grandparent post is correct that we don't understand the process perfectly.

As a scientist, I would hope that you are aware that correlation does not imply causation.

Re:Fact or fiction

[Cyberherbalist]

Why is it when I post something that says the problem exists, but is exagerated, someone has to then restate my opinion as extremely as you just did? I say deforestation is exagerated, and supposedly you read what I wrote, but then you claim I said it's a myth!

I think this is called a "straw man argument". You can't argue the actual facts, so you invent false facts that you can easily knock down and claim victory.

Deforestation is not a myth, but the figures the environmentalists have quoted in the past were out and out fabrications, designed to deceive. Had deforestation actually been going on at the rates claimed, then Brazil would be a parking lot today.

Next, I suppose you'll claim that I wrote that Brazil would be better off as a parking lot.

Re:Fact or fiction

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Guilty as charged.

Ironically, I've been driving through rural sections of Pennsylvania. Once you get outside of the major metro areas, it's God's country out there. Trees, trees, more trees. I'm a city boy. I know I'm out in the wild when the trees don't have the species on a little sign. Seeing that much wilderness was eye openeing.

When we got around the Scranton area though, we could see a bunch of old strip mines. Imagine if someone blows off the top of a mountain. Now imagine they left it that way once they extracted the material they wanted. You see desolation for square miles at a time, broken up by 200-300 foot mounds of gravel. Mind you, many of these mines haven't been active for decades. This is just the leftovers.

When we passed Waymart we could see a bunch of huge windmills dotting the mountaintops. To talk to the locals though, someone apparently has environmental concerns about them. They get too loud when it's windy, and eagles might fly into the blades.

Clean power, and people still bitch. And out here, where the effects of coal mining are all too clear.

So the truth is obviously somewhere between allowing rampant destruction of the environment and coddlling the tree huggers.

Re:Fact or fiction

[Cyberherbalist]

I agree with you; moderation in all things, even enviromentalism!

It is so nice to be able to see real trees, isn't it? I live in Washington state where trees are almost weeds (almost, but not quite). They're practically objects of religious veneration here, which I can understand, especially in the old growth stands.

Now, if only my karma would improve!

These folks are confused, or enemies of the state

[WarPresident]

Look, I'ma War President [smirk]. Since 9/11, we realized we can't sit around waiting for things to happen. We need to act now. Al Queda operatives are trying to destroy America. Saddam was a dangerous evil dictator. By hurting big business, the terrorists will win. These are things we know. We haven't yet proven a link between Al Queda and these evil scientists, but rest assured, when we do find it, I will act upon that intelligence.

actually, they ARE partisan.

[bani]

the scientists represent the 'truth' party, and the administration represents the 'lies' party.

MOD PARENT UP

[love2hateMS]

Bingo.

I concur...

[rbird76]

Open inquiry allows the data that industry people submit and that environmental people submit to be compared with other data to determine their validity for making decisions. Some proprietary data might be best kept secret, but keeping data used for public policy analysis secret should require fairly stringent conditions. Analysis of policy in fact requires openness. Closed meetings and discussions beg one to ask whether the stated motivations and analysis are the real ones, and prevent the refutation of bad logic and decision making (because no one simultaneously knows the input into the policy and the full set of data supporting or contradicting it, or those that do won't discuss them openly).

Secrecy in gov't requires trust from citizens, trust that has been violated often enough that it is hard to give. Secrecy without obvious benefits to the gov't or the country is destructive of the freedoms we have and that the gov't depends on (to generate the money it needs to work, for example). The benefits (to anyone other than the Bush Administration and his political friends) don't seem to be present. The US was created by people who did not believe that such trust was a good idea because it was a gateway to despotism, and subsequent events have not disproven the wisdom of their opinion.

Solid analysis can stand the light of reason.

Biased? BI-ASSED?

[Medievalist]

These scientists have only two asses!!!

They are of no use to me.

Now this is more like it...

UCS is a bunch of hacks

[Thornkin]

The UCS is, has been, and always will be political first and scientific second. They always come down on the left side of the equation. They aren't unbiased. Their analysis is politically motivated.

Re:"And geology, geology!", cried a little voice..

[EnderWiggnz]

this ought to be funny - how exactly did geology change evolution since the 60's on?

Just Read It

[Sinical]

Here

Here are their main findings:

1.There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

I must say that I'm *shocked* (*shocked*!) that anyone could suppose the Bush administration has ever been anything less than completely forthright about anything with the American public (cough, IRAQ, cough). I mean, they've never stretched or distorted facts to fit their preconceptions before, ever. Really!

I have the URL to the guy who does

[Mycroft_514]

and I do have statistics at the Master's level which allows me to understand it.

And more bright suggestions?

Re:I have the URL to the guy who does

[El_Ehmenopio]

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this. I don't know what data you are using, but I feel you are very very incorrect. Climate change is very real, we know that. Man-made climate change IS happening. Global warming is a theory, yes. But based off of very tested models for climate change. The only way to prove it enough to satisfy everyone, is to actually screw up the earth, and then a few times more for peer review. I for one, would rather take the more cautios approach, and ask fat suburbanites to drive a little less. We'll all be better off for it.

blah blah blah

[bmajik]

"biased towards scientific truth"

a) scientific truth is an oxymoron. the scientific process, as you know, requires axioms as its foundation, and upon those hypotheses are formulated, based on observations of phenomena

theroies are developed that seem to adequately explain the observations given the axioms all have pre-agreed to.

whats the point of this ?

Science is always our "best guess". That doesn't mean it's right.

On issues that matter, there will always be political involvement, even on the part of the scientists.

so science really boils down to a guess that seems reasonable, based on what some people came up with, based on their understanding of other things. people with biases of their own (including the bias that the scientific method, and scientific research is in itself infallable and absolute.. science is the new "magic" for most people)

Look at it this way - nobody does research into global warming unless they have a viewpoint about it one way or another. They either want to "prove" that its a problem, or "prove" that it isn't. The fact that there's any debate about it at all should be enough to convince you that there's no such concept as "scientific truth", at least as far as humans can discern, and it all boils down to arguments for or against something.. the argument presented either convinces you that its more likely than not "correct" or "incorrect"..

theoretical math is the only absolute in the universe. thats why its theoretical. anything else is religion. at least religious people aren't afraid to call themselves such. the hypocrites are the "scientific elite" that think they're above the religious types :) everybody beleives in something they cant prove. in the case of science, it's that their assumptions and axioms are the right ones :)

(time and time again we've seen that science is an iterative process of discovering why the old assumptinos were wrong)

Re:blah blah blah

[broter]

Science is always our "best guess". That doesn't mean it's right.

Science is a structured process that leads to support for or against a "best guess." If you RTFA (and RTFR), the problem is that the administration is not allowing scientific process in the research it is interested in.

The significant point about science is that you only need to follow the process to come up with a result. Unlike non-scientific pursuits, you don't need religious vigor to come to a conclusion. Also, there is no guarantee that you will end up supporting your origional assumption. An example of an experiment that went against the scientist's bias is Rutherford's experiment into atomic structure. He was directing a grad student to verify the raisin pudding model and ended up disproving it.

That said, it's true that you can't "prove" anything in science. But that's no reason to abandon scientific inquiry to the folly idiological assertions.

Re:blah blah blah

[EvilTwinSkippy]

Actually a lot of the folks studying global warming are climatologists. They really don't give a rats ass one way or another. They just want to know what to expect. In the process they discovered that the answer isn't pretty.

That's like saying they guy on the crow's nest looking for icebergs has a slant.

So what you're saying is that you support Bush

[Anonymous Coward]

Because he paid you off?

Re:So what you're saying is that you support Bush

[johnlcallaway]

Yes I am

Oh .. I get it. You think that's a bad thing.

The UCS

[ChrisMaple]

The UCS has a history of supporting left-wing dogma. I've seen many commentaries on their reports over the years, and every one shows the UCS opposing the U.S. or capitalism. The UCS can never be trusted.

Re:The UCS

[drooling-dog]

I've seen many commentaries on their reports over the years

Maybe you should try reading the reports themselves...

Re:The UCS

[Anonymous Coward]

The UCS has a history of supporting left-wing dogma. I've seen many commentaries on their reports over the years, and every one shows the UCS opposing the U.S. or capitalism. The UCS can never be trusted.

Maybe you should try looking at the material they criticize. It comes from many political perspectives, not just the stuff you follow.

Why am I NOT surprised? *sigh*

[Anonymous Coward]

It's time. You've (as a community) proven, time and
again, that you are no longer capable
of handling the governmental duties of this nation.
It's time you collectively admitted that it's messed up
beyond the "We'll fix it next time" BS.
It's time to rewrite back to the beginning and start over.

All we need you to do is "Admit" that this is truly the
case and we can begin rebuilding the USA before
it becomes the FUSA (Former United States of America)

In case everyone has forgotten history, this is a pretty
dang large crack in the foundation of ANY republic
that has fallen in the past.

A smidgen of accountability and we'd be a new nation!

Lies, damn lies, and stupidity.

[Anonymous Coward]

CEO median pay for 2002: $10.83 million
Median Household income for 2002: $42,000

(google to find the stats 'cause honestly you're not worth my time)

I've run a few senarios where the median household income is taxed at TWICE the rate of your average CEO, and the CEOs (assuming they are the top 10% of the wealthy) still manage to pay nearly 60% of the total taxes.

If it were truly a graduated tax, you'd expect the very wealthy would be paying a lot more of the tax burden. As it is, they pay less than the median household income.

But when you make about 258 times more than the next guy, I guess you can afford a damn good tax attorney.

Does that answer your question?

Here, here!

[FatSean]

I'm sick of picking up the slack of people who want to breed. They think it's their right to shit out flesh turds!

Judge the content of his speech.

[Anonymous Coward]

It's too bad that the so called liberal media has chosen to focus more on Bush's malaprops than the lies he's telling. While Clinton was impeached (but acquited) of perjury about getting a BJ, Bush gets a free pass for lying about: the justifications for taking our country into war (a necessary and just war anyway IMO); the consequences of his budget ($500+ billion per year!); who would actually benefit from tax cuts ("everyone benfits" when most people won't get anything or "$3000 average refund" because median income earners get $300 while the top .5% get $150,000); all the while forcing everyone in government to contort the facts to fit the Administration's agenda.

While the Dems may be tax and spend party, the Republicans are apparently the borrow and spend party. F'em both.

Do the research yourself!

[Anonymous Coward]

You can report scientific facts and still ignore other scientific facts that don't lead to the same conclusion and opinions as your own.

Dude, it's from the UCS not from the Libertarian Party. Where exactly is the UCS bias? I think you ought to do the research you are telling others to do. (I did, incidentally, which is why this post is so much later than yours.)

Environmentalism and Zionism are the topics where the Republican Right is indistinguishable from the Libertarian lunatic fringe (as typified by the Randites and the Cato Institute) - knee jerk reaction every time, ENVIRONMENTALISTS ARE COMMIES WHO HATE AMERICA!!!

And for the record, I voted Libertarian in the last four presidential elections. I might have voted Green last time around but the party ran that self-aggrandizing ass Nader, and I wouldn't vote for him for dogcatcher.

Let's say

[Anonymous Coward]

Let's say that somehow, you're actually right, and SDI works.

What does it work *for*?

What good is it? One, who do you expect to be using MISSLES against us? And two, who do you expect to be using missles against us who Mutually Assured Destruction cannot convince not to use missles?

The only significant attacks on american soil in the last ten years-- hell, in the last fifty years, maybe-- have been made either by airplanes or trucks filled with fertilizer. SDI is going to help against this... how?

Let's turn this around. In '83-'84 The Raeganites said that SDI was a worthy thing to research. 20 years later they have practically nothing to show for it. In that same 20 years Al-Qaeda has gone from nothing to a serious threat to the United States that SDI is literally and conceptually powerless against. Can you really say a 1983 criticism that SDI is inneffective and useless to be wrong?

...but are you a SCIENTIST??

[TrollBridge]

"I'm am member of the union of concerned scientists."

Very good, but are you in fact a scientist? With a Ph.D.? From what university?

The reason I'm asking is that many 'independent' groups such as "Physicians for Social Responsibility" have assumed names that suggest that (in this case) the group consists of a bunch of doctors with concerns about the Iraq war.

In fact, none of PSR's staff are actually physicians, and a $50 donation is all that is required to join the group and play doctor.

If you are in fact areal scientist, I mean no disrespect. I just want to be sure you're the real deal.

Re:...but are you a SCIENTIST??

[F34nor]

Um... wtf are you taking about? The president of the group (at the very least) is a Physician. You can join as a supporter for $50 but that does not make you a Physician.

Anyway why waste a good M.D. by making them an office monkey? You make no sense.

Re:...but are you a SCIENTIST??

[El_Ehmenopio]

Never claimed I was. I'm just an intern.

Kant vs cant

[ChrisMaple]

Kant: hideous philosopher

cant: repetition of conventional, trite, or unconsidered opinions.

Either could be correct.

Hogwash

[Lagged2Death]

The fact also is this: this paper has been conveniently released after the fact and before the election. Ask yourself, if these "scientific" facts were so vital to the question of the war and our leadership, why weren't they promulgated before the war?

The scientific community was indeed giving the lie to BushCo's claims about WMD long before the war. Apparently you weren't paying any attention. And neither was much of anyone else, major media included.

And "after the fact?" Responses are by nature "after the fact," that's just the way it is, Sparky.

As for "before the election," what do you want them to do, sit on this stuff until after the election? That makes no sense, and besides, altering the release date to a time that would serve a political agenda would be a political act, which is exactly what you're claiming they're doing. I guess they're damned if they do, and damned if they don't, eh?

Totally correct

[spitzak]

Though personally I was against the war, I certainly feel Bush could have justified it with information they knew, and the fact that he lied about these WMD, and it is becoming increasing clear that he knowingly lied, is very worrysome.

Bush could easily have argued with known and proven information. Saddamm had gassed thousands of his own people, and even if he had stopped doing so for awhile, he could easily do it again. He also presented plenty of threats to his own people and his neighbors, and was probably training and harboring terrorists (just not AlQueda, who hated him as much as the US). He was taking all the money in the country and making his people starve. He was threatening the US's supply of oil, which if worded right, could be a convincing argument. He was even threatening Russia and Europe's supply of oil. He had lauched missles against Israel. There are tons of bad things that were proven about him and could be used to argue that he had to be overthrown with a military attack.

I didn't question Bush's claim that Saddamm was working on WMD. I fully expected the US to overthrow the country in a matter of weeks, and immediatly find plenty of WMD work and radioactive dumps. I am as suprised as the biggest war hawk that WMD's were not found. But, unlike me, it appears Bush had good information saying that there was a significant chance that the WMD's would not be found. Since I believe he could have easily justified the war without this, I am a rather scared of an administration that would manufacture a lie so casually to get what they want.

Liars, damn liars, and statisticians

[geekee]

"Liars, damn liars, and statisticians" - Chrchill

Most of the issues refuted by these scientists are not understood in a deterministic sense. People have merely collected statistics and used them to predict trends. If you have a prediefined agenda, it's easy to look at statistics favorable to your goal, and ignore those that are not. This is, of course not scientific. This is not an ideal world, however, and someone who calls himself a scientist, may use statistics selectively to "prove" a concept as well. It's somewhat certain that the Bush administration is using these tactics, but that doesn't mean these scientists are not doing the same thing as well to push their political agendas.

Not so funny

[Pac]

Take a look at the "neo-catastrophists" and the resulting Gould's and Eldredge's work on punctuated equilibrium.

Budget

[nycsubway]

Well, he's put food on my family, and he's told me "it's a budget, its got a lot of numbers in it. hehe" so i'll beleive him when he talks about nucular weapons.

Not the issue

[The Tyro]

I personally find his statement that he "took the initiative in creating the internet" to be a grandiose attempt to take political advantage of the internet's popularity... He certainly was a supporter of the idea, but wrote none of the code, developed none of the protocols... he's trying to take credit for the hard work of a lot of scientists and engineers... I personally think that's obnoxious.

But that's not the issue. The parent poster attacked Bush's intelligence... I merely provided an equal-time counterpoint in the form of his previous challenger's record.

I also noticed you didn't refute anything I wrote, except to try to change the subject. If you're a Gore fan, Bush hater, or both, that's fine... but the parent poster attacked Bush's grades when his challenger's were as bad or worse.

As I said... in the interest of fairness.

Re:Not the issue

[chimpo13]

If you read the article that you cited, you'll notice that Gore wasn't making a "grandiose attempt to take political advantage of the internet's popularity". He didn't write the code, and never claimed he did. But if it wasn't for Gore the internet would probably still be ARPANET. Nothing obnoxious there.

I just don't think doing a grade check is a valid way to prove how intelligent someone is. There's lots of "book smart" people who aren't that bright in regular life. That was my point.

I'm not a Bush hater or a Gore fan. You're being overly defensive. Paranoid I think it's called. Do you listen to Limbaugh a lot?

Re:Not the issue

[CrazyDuke]

"took the initiative in creating the internet"

This is one of Gore's most publically mauled statements. I have no doubt he was trying to spin it in his benefit, but he did take the initiative to bring the public into Arpanet. Or, to explain to those who seem to have trouble comprehending this, he pushed Congress to get Arpanet privatized.

Re:Not the issue

[The Tyro]

I'm not a Bush hater or a Gore fan. You're being overly defensive. Paranoid I think it's called. Do you listen to Limbaugh a lot?

No... listen to Al Franken much? ;)

Gore's choice of words was poor at best, and left the impression (I believe deliberately) that he indeed "created the internet," when at best he was a supporter of the project and little more. It's classic politician... take credit for as many things as you possibly can, even if your role was peripheral.

I like to give credit to the people who actually do the grunt work, not the political figurehead of the project, or the guy who helped appropriate a drop out of the federal budget bucket.

But as to your other point, I agree... grades are not always the best measure of intelligence... but you cannot use them to tear down one candidate while simultanously building up another. My point is this: if grades are the standard, then let's see how all our would-be-presidents measure up.

Re:Not the issue

[theghost]

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.

Then it's equally obnoxious for Bush to take credit for the liberation of Iraq, after all, he didn't coordinate the troop movements, go on any patrols, or capture Saddam himself, right? He's just trying to claim credit for the hard work (literal blood, sweat, and tears) of a lot of soldiers.

Re:Not the issue

[hambonewilkins]

>No... listen to Al Franken much? ;)

How would you do that exactly? He's an author.

Re:Not the issue

[ncc74656]

No... listen to Al Franken much? ;)

How would you do that exactly? He's an author.

Ever hear of books-on-tape? I've never bought them, and I'd definitely never buy one by that arrogant blowhard Franken, but I can envision many an ill-educated left-winger opting for this particular book-on-tape. They could get their Two Minutes Hate fix without having to puzzle over the squiggly marks on paper.

Re:Not the issue

[hambonewilkins]

Your comment "Two Minutes Hate" makes it obvious you've never read his work.

I guess you could also "listen" to the NY Times with a text-to-speech converter, but most people would say you "read" the NY Times.

Perhaps its a regional thing. Or, perhaps its a knee-jerk conservative thing.

Re:Not the issue

[ncc74656]

Your comment "Two Minutes Hate" makes it obvious you've never read his work.

It's a reasonable extrapolation from what I have read about him elsewhere. Hell, his own book titles are illuminating in this regard.

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.

Re:Not the issue

[crucini]

I skimmed one of his books in the store, and if I'm thinking of the right one, "two minutes hate" is a pretty good description. The book was a compilation of mini-tirades against the perceived inaccuracies of the author's political adversaries, none of which were terribly compelling to someone not on the author's wavelength to start.

Of course, I may be thinking of someone else.

Re:Not the issue

[ncc74656]

Re:Not the issue (Score:0, Flamebait)

As surely as the sun rises in the east every morning, going against Slashbot groupthink in YRO is the surest way to get modded down. What's the matter, you cowardly moderators--don't have the chops to take what you dish out? 1984 called...it wants its Minitrue staff back.

Re:Not the issue

[GMontag]

Umm, he is a stand-up comic too, 24/7. He has an interview/monologue whenever he can find a camera. His writings are pretty much his comedy act, even the Limbaugh book.

Re:Not the issue

[hambonewilkins]

Perhaps it was your critique of books you haven't read. This is also known as pre-judgment or prejudice.

Perhaps when you have actually read the books, instead of "extrapolating", you can provide meaningful insight.

Re:Not the issue

[ncc74656]

Perhaps it was your critique of books you haven't read. This is also known as pre-judgment or prejudice.

That wouldn't happen to be anything at all like what your buddies are doing here, would it? I figured the reviews on a site that sells books would be from people who've actually read the book. I haven't read it yet myself (it arrived here Tuesday, but I'm still working on this), but you don't see me posting reviews just to move the overall rating up. Besides, there's plenty of material on which to come to an informed opinion about Al Franken without having to further line his already-bulging wallet. (Finding said material is left as an exercise for the reader. Google is your friend.)

Re:Well, it's obvious isn't it?

[Anonymous Coward]

Apparently the moderators don't know that Yale's business school sucks. Either that or they think anyone can get in to Harvard Business school with a C average.

So where's the data?

[max born]

There's hardly any data in this report. The only graph is Proposed Exhibit 1-8 (Attachemt A) which claims to show the average surface temparature of the Northern Hemisphere for the past 1000 years. We've only been able to measure temperature with any accuracy for about the past 50 years (not enough of a time span to draw much of a conclusion).

If I remember correctly, the volume of Earth's atmosphere is ~ 2-3 x 10^19(m^3) and by current measurements CO2 accounts for less than .03% of this. And considering the CO2 emissions from all the naturally occuring forest fires that have been raging every since the dawn of trees, it's difficult to believe humans can have much of an influence here.

Do the calculations. Show me the data.

Re:So where's the data?

[EmagGeek]

A ways back in time, I made a rough calculation of the amount of CO2 added to the atmosphere every year by 6 billion breathing humans... it turned out to be on the order of millions of times the amount of CO2 that has been released by the cumulative burning of fossil fuels (including coal) since 1950.

Re:So where's the data?

[plugger]

Yes, but the CO2 you breathe is part of the Carbon Cycle, it would have been recently fixed from the atmosphere by plants. The problem with fossil fuels is that burning them increases the total amount of carbon in circulation, and thus the proportion of CO2 in the atmosphere.

Re:So where's the data?

[Cackmobile]

plus the fact that we are destroying the trees to remove the co2

...twenty Nobel laureates

[Psyqlone]

Henry Kissinger is a Nobel laureate, as is Le Duc Tho.

Come to think of it, so is Yasser Arafat. ...which proves nothing of course, but it does give ME pause.

You need to look at them more closely

[HarveyBirdman]

I've folowed through on their number before. Too many of them dead end in the situations I described. The only legitimate ones are the easy, no-brainer stuff where even someone like Bush wouldn't argue. And their guiding, core ideology is definitely not mainstream. I used to look up to these guys when I was a kid, but when I learned the ropes of real scietific method, I began to see through their flim-flam.

P.S.

[Phillup]

And... watch the market increase in value as it starts to "build in" the possibility of Bush being replaced.

As Bush sinks in the polls... the market goes up.

It isn't just coincidence.

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.

Make the pie higher!

[Grendel Drago]

And by doing so, he made the pie higher.

Google is not a valid cite

[HarveyBirdman]

EOM

Cars and toilet paper

[jonskerr]

Funny, I thought humans got along for millenia without either. Most people get along fine without a car now. I bet you drive a 4-ton clone box (suv) to get to the video game store a mile or two away.

Re:Cars and toilet paper

[johnlcallaway]

And they used to die of all kinds of nasty things before they got to the age of 35. Infant mortality was through the roof, most people were illiterate, and the masses rarly traveld more than 100 miles from where they were born.

Ahhhh...the good ole days when times were simpler and dental hygiene was unknown.

I agree with you. People can just raise their own food so we don't need trucks too. I'm sure those starving kids in Africa would understand when we can no longer send them food and medicine any longer.

Damn environmentalists....

Re:Cars and toilet paper

[Anonymous Coward]

You mean like now? Infant mortality rates are disgustingly high in the US (to say nothing of the survival rate of the mothers themselves). And you might be surprised how many Americans die within 50 miles of where they were born. (I believe it's approx. 40%, according to the US Census data.)

And you don't really consider the literacy rate to be anything to boast about these days, do you?

Bush? Distort the Facts?

[webzombie]

WTH!

They Must Be Joking

[thedbp]

Accusing the Bush regime of lying to fit their agenda is like going up to a guy wearing a mask, all black, carring a burlap sack of high-priced electronics, whilst running from the po-leece, and saying "Hey! You're a theif!"

What's sad is that they had to bring this to the world's attention. As a general rule of thumb, if the leader of the world's most powerful nation says something is fact, its usually suspect, and its a good idea to check the research. Especially if said leader is a Republican. Or a Democrat.

Oh well. Maybe some enterprising country will stage a coup and 'liberate' us from our dictator if he gets elected again. Sort of an international intervention. "Look America, generally you're an OK country, but this Bush rut you've got yourself stuck in - look, we know you won't think so now, but this is for the best - trust us."

this stinks...

[PreteristGuy]

Hmmyeah....this doesn't stick at all of political bias, especially in an election year!

FUCKING HYPOCRISY - yeah, I know "here on /." No

[SensitiveMale]

My original message

Bush is stupid
No WMDs ever existed
Bush can't speak correctly
Ashcroft is stripping every liberty we have
Bush is evil
Reagan was stupid
Global warming is happening right now
These scientists are not bias at all.

Before you flame-bait me, ALL of the above WERE responses by people in this thread.

And I get modded down as flame-bait.

BUT ALL OF THE ABOVE RESPONSES WERE MODDED UP TO 4 OR 5. THOSE WERE ACTUAL RESPONSES THAT WERE MODDED UP.

THAT was my point.

You forgot the def of "generalization".

[Tired_Blood]

Who should know more about SCO code?

and I'm not trying to be funny.

In the first weeks of the SCO mess, most interested people stepped back and took the issue seriously. Why? Because, being directly involved with the subject, SCO should know best what they're talking about.

As I stated, my previous comment was a generalization and was a response to the summary. The feeling I got from that last line made me think of the title 'expert', and where experts get their qualifications. The fact that the article said "...individuals with ties to the lead industry.", made me suspect FUD. What better way to dismiss the qualifications of those two?

And your response is no better! By your reasoning, research into the effects of lead on human physiology would be a waste of time, since it doesn't take an expert to figure it out. If human physiology is that easy: tell us the cure for cancer. Didn't think so...

I happen to think that the current administration does inappropriate things, this being among them. But I noticed FUD, and reflected on the author's approach.

Re:You forgot the def of "generalization".

[LMCBoy]

And your response is no better! By your reasoning, research into the effects of lead on human physiology would be a waste of time, since it doesn't take an expert to figure it out. If human physiology is that easy: tell us the cure for cancer. Didn't think so...

I think you misunderstood me. I didn't say that expertise is not required, I said that *getting money from the lead industry* is not required for one to obtain expertise on lead.

You said (paraphrasing) "who better to investigate lead than the experts in the lead industry, who have the expertise?". My point is, there are scientists who are experts in lead, despite the fact that they have no ties to the lead industry. These same scientists (who find that lead is quite dangerous) were dismissed from their positions and replaced by those who *do* have ties to the lead industry (who, lo and behold, find that lead is much less dangerous. Amazing!).

Do you see the problem with that? If you want unbiased research results, the researchers should not be financially beholden to *any* interested party related to the subject of the investigation. It's just common sense.

Uh-huh.

[Grendel Drago]

Random example off the top of my head: an American citizen is held without being charged with a crime, without trial or bail, for eight months. Wait, let me guess. It doesn't count, because he's a brown American.

I think that those ginormous tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy may have had some effect on the debt. Just maybe. That, and the $100bn+ adventure in Iraq.

*cough* Abstinence-only education *cough*. When they require teaching abstinence, and disallow teaching anything else, that makes it 'abstinence-only'. Get it?

If you're going to talk smack, can you at least talk the kind of smack that can't be refuted with five minutes of Googling?

--grendel drago

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

And what is so wrong with abstinence-only education? We have been teaching birth-control and "safe-sex" for years and what has it gotten us? An ever increasing number of teenage pregnancies and an increase in STDs among our youth.

Abstinence works every time it is tried.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that those ginormous tax cuts for the extraordinarily wealthy may have had some effect on the debt.

You people scream about the tax rebate that the "rich" got, but have you considered that the "rich" pay more taxes than anyone else. So why shouldn't the "rich" get more back in returns? The left wants to talk about equality and fairness... how about equality and fairness who worked their asses off the make the money they do.

BTW, I'm not rich. I made $13,000 last year in a job that paid $11,500. I'm grateful to my "rich" boss for paying me what he does.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

You people scream about the tax rebate

With all due respect, the US is in debt to the tune of six trillion dollars. The government should not cut taxes until it's paid off. Cutting taxes when we not only have a huge debt, but also a record deficit is just plain irresponsible.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Wolfier]

Nobody says abstinence doesn't work.

However, abstinence-*ONLY* education is backwards. The keyword here is "ONLY".

It should be presented as one of the several OPTIONS, and certainly not by downplaying other information, in order to further political agendas.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Stupid comments come out of stupid mouths.

So, abstinence works everytime it is tried and other methods don't work?

Dude, the statistics does not prove that birth-control and safe-sex don't work.

Most likely, the teenage pregnancies and an increase of STD are caused by not practising birth-control and "safe-sex" at all. These people are going to ignore about abstinence ANYWAY.

Re:Uh-huh.

[Anonymous Coward]

Why aren't they practicing those methods then? After all, they are being taught that in government schools? Maybe they are the stupid ones.

Execution.

[Grendel Drago]

Oh, yeah. Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were dealt with via an exchange program... WITH HELL!!

Seriously, your memory chews balls if you can't think of the US ever executing spies. They are, more often than not, imprisoned for extensive terms, not sent home in exchange for other spies.

--grendel drago

Re:Execution.

[Desert Raven]

Yup, but they were OUR citizens, not foreign spies, and were given a full trial before execution. Not summarily shot, as was implied.

Care to try again?

Uhhh... OK.

[iceperson]

So you can complain about Bush when your alternative was no better? That's like the people who voted for Clinton over Dole making a big deal about military service now.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

I can complain about Bush because Bush is the one in power. Given the topic of the article, bringing Gore into the discussion is completely pointless as it leads to nothing but politicized conjecture. I hate Bush, I hate Gore. The point is, Gore has nothing to do with this article. Had Gore won the presidency, bringing Bush into this thread would be equally pointless.

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.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[fenix down]

Well, to be fair we were fighting zero* wars in '96, now we've got two.

*Well, Bosnia, but the pull-out was already pretty much done by the time the election came around, and NATO was in charge there anyway.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, to be fair we were fighting zero* wars in '96, now we've got two.

So where did all of those cruise missles go that Clinton launched?

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

'96 also saw the Khobar towers terrorist attack, as well as US troops deployed in Liberia.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[Anonymous Coward]

Are you serious you DONT KNOW HOW EDWARDS MISUSED SCIENCE? Typical, people get the wool pulled over their eyes willingly!

The answer is that Edwards used junk science to extract million dollar awards blaming birth defects like cerebral palsy on the poor doctors who had the misfortune to be involved in the delivery of such babies. Even though *real* scientists will tell you doctors have nothing to do with it, find enough quacks to bamboozle a scientifically illiterate jury and you've got the jackpot!

And that's how Edwards made his millions:

http://209.157.64.200/focus/f-news/1061987/posts

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[theghost]

1) That's interesting info and very relevant...

2) But i wouldn't put much faith in anything FreeRepublic.com put out about John Edwards. (Incidentally, why did you work so hard to hide the site name by using its IP address instead of its name and by not actually providing a link? They are proud of their bias, why aren't you?) They got the story from CNSNews.com They claim CNS stands for Cybercast News Service (Cybercast News Service News.com? Brilliant.) but a quick scan of their supporters (Rush Limbaugh, Newt Gingrich, the FRC...) points more towards Conservative News Service as the real acronym.

At any rate, a quick search would've turned up a much more in-depth and balanced article on the subject in the New York Times. They don't clear Edwards of wrongdoing, but they also can't be accused of glossing over the story just to trash Edwards.

Trying to obscure your source and using a blatantly biased source when a less biased one is available weakens your argument, which at its heart is valid.

SDI.

[Grendel Drago]

SDI was billed as an anti-missile system. As an anti-missile system, it failed.

Had SDI been a giant metal cock with which to bitch-slap the Russkies, and had that ended the Cold War, then yeah, I think you could say SDI worked. However, SDI was not billed as a giant metal cock.

SDI, in and of itself, did not work. It was a failed boondoggle. Scaring the Russians does not mean that SDI "worked".

--grendel drago

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:IAAS (I Am A Scientist)

[jdiggans]

You're, of course, correct but this is the whole point behind the peer-review process in science. Trust but verify. Twenty Nobel laureates pissing on your parade would seem to me to be a pretty negative peer-review.
-j

Re:IAAS (I Am A Scientist)

[prestidigital]

Not to mention that some of them are Republicans and at least one of them worked for Nixon!

Re:IAAS (I Am A Scientist)

[mosb1000]

Working for Nixon doesn't mean that you agree with the modern republican plaform. When Nixon was president, religon was a MUCH smaller part of the republican party. The republican party today is much different from what it was back then, and most "old school" republicans aren't happy about that.

Election year? Re:Who to believe?

[jdgeorge]

I disagree. In an election year, with America as divided as ever, with all the political innuendo about corruption that's getting airtime lately, how can you release something like this and NOT make it political?


Err... I live in the United States, and I have noticed over the course of my lifetime that every year is an election year. It's just that the election of the US President happens every 4 years. Elections for other government positions generally occur at different, well-defined intervals (a notable exception to the "well-defined interval" rule being the state of California).

In light of this, how (in the United States of America) can one be said to do something in anything other than an election year? Every statement must therefore be considered political.

So write the gov a check

[iceperson]

You know you can send them money right? "During the Bush recession..." When did the recession begin? Oh nevermind, I wouldn't want to bother you with fact like the economy was in a downturn when Clinton left office. And there was the little thing that happened on 9/11 that changed everything. "Read my lips, Tax rises are inevitable." How long is that sustainable? Are you a communist? Sounds like your plan will get us there eventually.

Re:So write the gov a check

[OwnedByTwoCats]

More Republican obfuscation.

The U.S. economy continued growing until March, 2001. It contracted from then until November, 2001. 9/11 did not change everything.

In February, 2002, after 9/11, the Bush economic team projected a 2003 budget deficit of $14 Billion. Actual 2003 budget deficit: $375 Billion.

Re:Who to believe? The Creationists!

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Indeed. Since my creationist friends are quite intelligent, and very good in the fields of biology, physics, and mathematics, I give them the benefit of the doubt.

Mod up parent

[Anonymous Coward]

Well said! I wish I had mod-points.

please tell me you aren't a scientist

[caveat]

or at least if you are, please tell me none of your work has ever passed peer review.

Right!

[iceperson]

We should just blindly follow people whose existence relies almost completely on my tax dollars. It's not in their best interest to raise taxes and increase the size of government at all. Riiiiiiight...

Re:Right!

[Anonymous Coward]

We should just blindly follow people whose existence relies almost completely on my tax dollars.

No, their existence relies upon the fact that these people are widely considered to be very smart and hence have a very rare skill set. The government pays them to think of new stuff that will improve USA. And the government does it because of a failure on the part of the private sector to perform some basic and essential research. Feel free to lobby your government if you think it's in your interests to reduce scientific funding, but be aware that these scientists (or future scientists) may simply decide to settle in another country and benefit their economy instead.

Problem is constituency

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush is attempting to appeal to the pointy headed voters out there on things like stem cell research, and to monied interests on lead standards. At least Gore *appears* engaged. This is one area where being a policy wonk is a good thing. Bush doesn't appearto rely on logic, but to lead with hisemotions and experience.If he hasn't experienced something personally, it doesn't appear to exist for him.

i think i understand..

[bmajik]

that the basic argument is that you feel that because no WMD's were found, when the pretense given for going to war was that they existed.. that the pretense of the war was fabricated to justify going to war.

IOW, nobody likes being lied to, and nobody likes going to war in general, but especially if they were drug into it under false pretenses.

thats perfectly understandable... i think i'd feel the same way.

the difference is that i fundamentally trust the bush administration (as much as i trust any politician, which is a derived class of "Person", which i also do not trust, but "Politician" has a special "do not trust" modifier ;)

that said, i was really surprised that no significnat WMD parts have been found. I mean, 10+ years of evidence points to existance of such.. evidence presented by both parties, multiple administrations, even non-US interests. Everyone thought he had them.

So, in effect, what that means is that if WMD are never found (and assuming that means they didn't exist), then i was wrong, despite all the indicators that wmd should have been found..

isn't is possible that bush/powell are just as surprised as anybody else ?

in which case, the objection based on them being intentionally misleading doesn't really fly ?

I donno. I like to assume that people are wrong more often than they're lying. Call me gullible. I see a few possibilities.

1) there are/were WMDs but none were found
(cant be mad at bush for this)
2) there are/were NO wmds but everyone thought there was (cant be mad at bush for this, either)
3) there were NOT wmds, despite all the research to the contrary, and somehow bush and only bush knew this, and managed to convince the american people, the UN, The UK, and pretty much everyone, that there were.
(ok, you can be mad about that)

weighing the liklihood of all options, i'd say its between #1 and #2.

remember, Bush wasn't the first person to say there was a WMD problem in iraq. Clinton actually said something similar, and had plans to go do something about it but they never materialized. That lends further credibility to #1.

Re:i think i understand..

[Anonymous Coward]

Please what bull. The President, and key senior members of his administration said they knew specific locations and amounts of WMD. Trying to blame this on Clintion doesn't negate what they help up as facts.

So where they hell are they? Either they lied, or they were terribly incompetent. Seems pretty obviously to me the first, but what the heck. Maybe they are just incompetent? Either way, time for new leadership.

Re:i think i understand..

[Steve525]

I really need to go, but I'll try to make a quick comment...

My opinion is probably somewhere between 2 and 3. I don't think the Bush administration out and out lied, but I think they looked at the evidence too biasedly. At some point they decided to go to war, and to use this as their justification. As you pointed out, they weren't the first to believe in the existance of WMDs, so this was a good approach for them to take.

So, they gather evidence for WMDs. Any evidence that points to WMDs is highlighted, and evidence that points away is buried. Again, this is very similar to what they are being accused of in the current topic. It also is hard to prove this sort of behaviour since they aren't lying about a black and white subject, they are just altering the shades of grey to suit their needs. I don't think that the administration knew that they wouldn't find any WMDs, but I bet they aren't as surprised as you are that they didn't.

Thanks for an intellegent but divergent answer to a political comment I made on Slashdot. (I don't know if I've ever had one of those before).

Re:i think i understand..

[jnicholson]

that said, i was really surprised that no significnat WMD parts have been found. I mean, 10+ years of evidence points to existance of such.. evidence presented by both parties, multiple administrations, even non-US interests. Everyone thought he had them.

No-one I know (I live outside the US) believed that there were WMD in Iraq. Some of us thought that the war was still necessary. We mostly thought that Bush (or at least some of his advisors) knew it was an excuse, and lots of Americans also knew it was an excuse, but agreed with the war anyway.

If Americans did generally believe in the WMD, when did they stop believing?

Re:i think i understand..

[bmajik]

you dont think there were any WMD's in iraq at any time ?

You should ask those gassed kurds about it.

Oh wait, they're DEAD.

(it might be correct to point out that the US probably sold them some of this stuff; shame on us if thats the case. shame again on us if we dont clean up the mess when we discover the folly of our ways)

Re:i think i understand..

[Seanasy]

Apparently you got the memo. The neo-con line is now "we had bad intelligence, blame the CIA," not "there could still be WMDs."

I know that's inflammatory, but there really was no evidence of WMDs at the time we chose to go to war. The UN inspectors were not out to protect Saddam. He (Saddam) was a sadist prick and everyone knows it. Including the UN inspectors. But they had no evidence and, like you trust Bush et al., I trust the UN inspectors. We can debate who had the motivation to cook the books (Bush or the UN) but I'm tired of that song. The point remains that people involved were screaming at Bush "there's no WMDS there." Yet, he went ahead with war anyway.

Sure, even Bill O'Reilly is eating his own words. There are no WMDs. There were none. Not everyone thought there were WMDs. That leaves number 3.

Re:i think i understand..

[Phronesis]

The US didn't exactly sell Saddam the WMD he used to gas the Kurds, but when we found out that he had gassed them we increased the amount of foreign aid we were giving him.

That's the Reagan/Bush/Bush strategy: find a bad guy whom a Democrat has labeled a terrorist. Then find another bad guy. Say that bad guy 1 is not a terrorist because he's against bad guy 2. Give aid to bad guy 1 until he becomes a threat to the US.

Reagan and Bush I did this with Saddam: Jimmy Carter called him a terrorist and cut off aid. Reagan said he's not a terrorist and restored aid.

Reagan also played similar games with Osama bin Laden---the CIA recruited him when he was a drunken Saudi playboy and convinced him to go to Afghanistan and put some meaning in his life fighting Soviets.

Clinton declared Pakistan a pariah state for building nuclear weapons.

Bush II declared Pakistan just peachy, never mind the nukes.

How long until the nuclear technology Pakistan is selling around the world blows up in our faces? Will anyone remember then that it was W. who gave them the green light.

Re:i think i understand..

[Phronesis]

Clinton actually said something similar

Clinton was quite gullible on these sorts of things. Remember when he bombed an aspirin factory in Sudan because he had "intelligence" telling him that nerve gas was being made there?

Is it the best Bush can do to say, "I am just like Clinton?" Doesn't exactly make him look good, you know.

Re:"And geology, geology!", cried a little voice..

[cardshark2001]

.in the back of room, in a tone certain to make you know you shouldn't have forgotten the one "logy" that all but turned Evolution upside down from the sixties on... :)

Yes, Velikovsky was sorta right about something wasn't he?

See, I'm an equal opportunity offender.

Shocked!

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about the rest of you, but personally I am shocked!

Granted, I was aware, vaguely at least, that George W Bush:

1. Cannot speak English, only Mexican;
   
2. Continually mispronounces 'nuclear' even in official speeches;
   
3. Loves killing people and killed 152 in Texas;
   
4. Is a total loser who smoked so much grass he couldn't show up for military operations;
   
5. Is such an asshole they've had to delete all his drunk driving records in Texas;
   
6. Did not so much win the election in 2000 as steal it;
   
7. Is just a total fucking loser that should be standing on a chow line somewhere, except really evil people like Karen Hughes and Richard Pearle know what a gem they have in this supremely malleable empty-headed moron.
   

But now I hear - is it true? That his administration is being DISHONEST too?

I can't believe it. I simply can't believe it!

Union of Soviet Socialist Concerned Scientists

[technoCon]

Weren't these guys the folks who back in the '70s maintained this doomsday clock that was ticking toward midnight? Every time anybody did something that might make the Ruskies grumpy. Like deploying Pershing missiles or proposing anti-ballistic missile programs, they'd get their nickers in a knot and turn the clock forward a few minutes toward doomsday. Every time some Democrat did something stupid (Jimmy Carter's penchant) they'd turn it back a few seconds.

Science has uncertainties at the boundaries of what's known, and it provides stupid outputs when given stupid inputs. This is how the propagandist in a white lab coat deceives you.

The big Nuclear Winter scare came about when some lefty PhDs did a ONE DIMENSIONAL model of the atmosphere and tweaked the parameters until they got a favorable doomsday scenario. The lefties got their propaganda win and everybody got scared, and when someone with bigger computers, better models, and more accurate input data debunked the Nuclear Winter fraud, the press had gone on to the next chicken little.

Bottom line is that you'll find propagandists misrepresenting science on both political sides. Skepticism is appropriate in any case.

Re:Union of Soviet Socialist Concerned Scientists

[Anonymous Coward]

"The Ruskies"?

Hey Pops, isn't that your time machine sitting over there?

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?

HTML version - easier to read

[scienceboy3]

Here's an HTML version, includes about half the doc.

http://webexhibits.org/bush/

just like a lib...

[iceperson]

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?

Re:just like a lib...

[ObiWanKenblowme]

Just like a conservative to muddy the issue. Gore's grades don't matter now because he's not the President of the United States of America, you ninny. Bush, however, is the President, and his administration makes the policies which this group has brought into question. This isn't a big "what if Gore was President" debate, it's a question of whether the Bush administration distorted and/or suppressed facts for political advantage.

They never spend money on crap?

[iceperson]

How many times have you seen a study come out that says eating chocolate and nothing but chocolate is bad for you or some other such crap? How much of my tax dollars are spent each your to study the burps of cows and other nonsense? I have no problem with cancer research or alternative energy research and things of that nature but you and I both know that there is a lot of money mis-spent in the science community.

Arguably correct

[mmuskratt]

The argument that Mr. Hussein gassed his own people is commonly used as justification for cluster-bombing innocent children in Baghdad. The United States of America provided the Iraqi government with numerous chemical and biological weapons during the buildup of hostilities with Iran. Sorry, but we didn't seem to mind it much when it served our political needs, so why are people so adamant about bringing it up now? This was 20 years ago, when Donald Rumsfeld was shaking hands with Hussein and offering him our support. I am willing to bet that the information we had was receipts for stuff we sold his ass over the last 20 years...by the guys who openly supported selling it to him. That's why they freaked, and were one-upped by their own puppet, or perhaps the scientists and leaders behind him. Afghanistan: Mission NOT Accomplished. Iraq: Mission NOT Accomplished. Unless the mission was to bomb the living shit out of civilians with devastating and even radioactive weapons, then give a ton of corporate contracts to companies that have screwed with the region for decades now and need new sources of revenue...

just like a con...

[Anonymous Coward]

can't even keep the fucking discussion on-topic. Gore is OFF TOPIC to the entire article thread, yes some Bush apologist wanted to take the heat off of the Whitehouse so the old spectre of Gore was invoked for no reason. Can't you conservative wannabes even keep focus on the article topic?

Hold the phone

[iceperson]

How are Bush's grades in college on topic? If you're going to attack someone for being off topic maybe you should go back to the lib that thinks that Bush's grades are in anyway relevant to this discussion.

Re:Hold the phone

[Anonymous Coward]

Bush's grades are only slightly on topic in the sense that he's the FUCKING PRESIDENT who makes decisions based on the information handed to him. He's in power and it's his decision making process which leads to various policies. Granted, his college grades are only a minor indicator but you could easily argue that they do offer some point of reference. Gore, on the other hand, is not in power at all, has absolutely no influence in the Bush administration, and therefore Gore's college grades are completely off topic. The Tyro invoked Gore to try to redirect some criticism off of Bush, and that was a pointless threadjack.

in 6 letters or less...

[fenix down]

The sun.

Dinosaur Farts

[quantaman]

I remember a while ago here in Alberta Premier Klein made a very interesting quote about global warming where he joked that the end of the ice age was due to dinosaur farts. This made me realize that Klein, and probably a lot of other politicians, not only doesn't believe in science but doesn't even respect it. They'll quote studies when it suits them and claim they have done scientific research but at the end of the day I don't believe science has the slightest baring on their decisions. Therefore it's not surprising that politicians are playing funny with the numbers, after all it's just dinosaur farts.

Jimmy Carter was Smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

President Bush cares more about terrorists and WMD than fish swallowing mercury, or even the economy.
He's the President, not a scientist. How about Jimmy Carter? He was real smart, but did that make a good President?

I plan on voting for President Bush because I believe unborn, half born, and seriously ill people should have the right to live.

The Lord Jesus Christ is the only true God. He has saved me from my sin, and given me new life. I praise him.
If you confess the Lord Jesus with your mouth, and believe in your heart that God has raised Him from the dead, you'll be saved.

Let the Lord be magnified.
My Web Site

Re:Jimmy Carter was Smart...

[Anonymous Coward]

Faggot.

Another sign...

[Anonymous Coward]

that Bush is toast.

In November, Remove the Reckless Resident!!

Flush Twice; It's a long way to the White House

[kleptocrat]

Interesting. Today's Washington Post is recommending D.C. residents flush their taps for 10 minutes to help reduce exposure to lead. Missed the opportunity to blame it on Bush, however.

Story

The moth myth fails

[Pike]

No.

Before the heavy industry, there were light-colored moths and dark-colored moths.

After the heavy industry, there were still light and dark colored moths.

No change of species took place. All that happened was that the populations of two different colors of the same moths had changed.

Re:The moth myth fails

[boarder]

Microevolution is defined as a gradual change in genetic frequency. Since the colour of the moth is a gene controlled thing, the change in frequency of colours in the moth shows microevolution. Microevolution is a type of evolution, so evolution does occur.

He stated that there were two types of evolution within biological terms... one proven (micro) and one unproven (macro). Evolution is a generic term.

Depends on your definition...

[iceperson]

I guess it all just depends on your definition of "is" and "grades" and "muddy".

In other news...

[c4ffeine]

Today, the Bush administration said in a press release that 20 important US scientists had been arrested for terrorism charges under the Patriot Act

Re:In other news...

[spood]

Why would they bother with a press release? PATRIOT says they can just rot in Cuba without anyone knowing.

It is truly not a shame

[sybert]

I think he really means left-wing Christian fundamentalists. Fundamentalism, having the church=state in charge of everyone's lives and the means of production, is a left-wing notion. The taliban, pre-reformation church, etc. are all left-wing entities. It is right-wing Christians who wrote the constitution, believe that we are all endowed by the Creator with unalienable Rights of Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness, believe in the free expression of religion, and oppose the establishment of a state religion. Right-wingers believe that no king, state, or religion should come between an individual and his faith in God.

The left-wing influence on science is very troubling. It is the left-wing fundamentalist influence on the administration that troubles the UCS. However, the general left-wing environment scare, junk science, anti-business, and anti-humanity rhetoric should be far more troubling to scientists and the public. Other posters here have described those more troubling UCS biases on science.

The problem is that we are not teaching science (or anything else) very well in our schools. If we taught science (and math, economics, and everything else) properly the public would be able to see through all the left-wing (religious and socialist) rhetoric.

Our right wing administration has liberated 50 million people from left-wing fundamentalism and fascism in Afghanistan and Iraq. We are constructing a model of freedom and democracy that is already having a large positive influence on the rest of the left-wing middle-east and other totalitarian dictatorships.

There was no evidence that Saddam had disarmed Iraq of WMD's, he simply won the game of hide-and-seed with the UN and US. The cease-fire and UN resolutions were not about hide-and-seek.

It has been found that the right-wing administration has trampled on 0 peoples civil liberties via the PATRIOT act. Compare this to 100+ millions killed last century by left-wing regimes.

There is no constitutional separation of church and state. Christians (both left and right) are fighting the judges who are trying to abolish the free expression of religion on public property.

Abstinence just needs to be taught properly. The more sex you have outside of marriage, on average, the less time you will spend in marriage. Abstinence is actually a long-term sex-maximizing strategy.

The BLS household survey shows over a 1.5M employment increase in 2003, and 496K increase in January. The lagging payroll job stats only show that big corporations are not taking over everything.

The previous grid-locked out-of control president and congress spent the tech bubble proceeds buying bonds (surplus), while neglecting the common defense and national infrastructure. We paid heavily for this grid-lock. Hopefully, this won't happen again.

Re:It is truly not a shame

[Anonymous Coward]

You might want to study a little history before you post this tripe. Our nation's founders were considered radical liberals in their day.

In the US, right wingers have long encouraged government sponsorship of certain forms of christianity.

Your second and third paragraphs were almost correct. Keep that up and you'll deserve a cookie.

• Combination of church and state is definitely not a left-wing position. Many left-wing churches actively opposed Bush's Faith-based initiative and adamantly oppose letting the government control the church's purse-strings.
• There was overwhelming evidence that Iraq had disarmed. The question was whether or not Iraq had disarmed completely.
• You are going to have a mighty hard time proving no one's rights have been trampled on--even if you were right, which you're not.
• The first amendment says:

  Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

  There are two statements there. The establishment clause prohibits the government from practicing, promoting, encouraging or otherwise participating in religion. The free exercise clause prohibits the government from infringing upon the right of private citizens to practice religion. Taken together, they essentially mean there is a separation of church and state. It was Thomas Jefferson who coined that phrase while promoting the constitution.

• You seem to be ignoring the countless jobs that disappeared in the same timeframe.
• During Clinton's term, the US spent more on defense than the next 20 most militarized nations combined! If the common defence was neglected, it had nothing to do with a lack of funds, and it is doubtless the hundreds of billions of dollars we have spent in the past several years have changed any underlying problems.

That figures,

[Anonymous Coward]

since you've obviously failed to make any sort of point whatsoever in this thread, let's throw in a lame Clinton jab! Might as well since you have nothing of value to say.

For the record, Bush, Gore, and Clinton can all rot in hell, just so you don't think it's some "leftist" you are talking to.

UCS isn't credible...

[Anonymous Coward]

UCS is an ultra left-wing extremist organization with a clear political agenda - remove republicans from office by any means necessary, regardless of how much they must distort facts in order to do so.

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.

How funny

[iceperson]

I keep getting called a conservative when the fact is I'm a libertarian. Both parties want to take something from me. The Dems want my guns and the Reps want my porn. Thing is my guns are more important to me so who you think I'm going to vote for until there's a viable alternative? I actually wouldn't mind if Edwards was the Dem candidate because I might have to give him a hard look. I voted for Bush but I have no problem criticizing him for many of the things he's done (immigration policy and out of control spending) but I want the playing field to be somewhat level in these debates. If grades matter to you then fine, but if you say they matter one year and don't the next I'm going to call you out on it. Same with military service and integrity. If you say Bush has no integrity and he's not fit to lead then you better have said that when Clinton was in office. I'm tired of all these ideologues and I honestly get a kick out of baiting them because it's just soooo easy.

BZZzzzttt!

[Phillup]

Thanks for playing!

And the winner is...

Re:BZZzzzttt!

[Mybrid]

Ha! Ha! Check your sources, dude. The $1 million dollar was not in the general bracket. Nice try though.

bias definition

[rbird76]

(via hyperdictionary.com)

1) (n) a partiality that prevents objective consideration of an issue or situation

2) (n) (fabric cut)

3) (adj) (referring to a fabric cut)

4) (v) to cause to be biased

5) (v) to influence an outcome in an unfair way (e.g., "you are biasing my choice by telling me yours"

I intended definition 1 (referring to the UCS) - I didn't intend to imply an inability to objectively discuss a topic, but perhaps an inhibition. "Preconceived viewpoint" would perhaps have been a better expression for my intended meaning of bias.

Even though the UCS (may) have an ideological bias (as in def. 1), that does not render their findings incorrect (they may be incomplete but not necessarily wrong). I could also be incorrect - they might not be biased as in 1) - they may be able to provide both complete and objective discussion on GWB's use of science.

Did you have any other issues with what I wrote (or did I not address your primary issue)?

Re:bias definition

[superdude72]

The word "bias" is abused a lot because people don't understand what objective/subjective actually mean.

I'm opposed to Bush politically, but that doesn't mean I'm "biased." Biased implies that my opposition is subjective--that it comes from within me, and has no connection to the object (Bush's policies.) If I'm biased, he can change all his policies 180 degrees and become the Second Coming of Paul Wellstone, and I'll still oppose him because my opposition is subjective.

If I started with a conclusion (Bush Bad!) and only paid attention to facts which support that conclusion, that would be biased. Merely having a point of view on whether he should be reelected does not make me biased, as it is possible to reach that point of view objectively.

Sit down

[The Tyro]

You're talking to the wrong guy. Even though I didn't start this thread, I will not apologize for pointing out the obvious double standard.

You're quite right though... Bush's intelligence has nothing to do with the accusations of the scientists in the article. Bush is not a scientist, doesn't pretend to be, and his science intellect is absolutely and totally irrelevant to the issue at hand. What recent president, excepting Carter, has had any serious science background? Better yet, can you show me a recent president who made his own scientific policy decisions without leaning heavily on advisers?

Bush's intellect is largely irrelevant, just as Gore's is irrelevant... they're just irrelevant for different reasons. Gore's IQ is irrelevant because he's not in office, and Bush's IQ is irrelevant because, like most presidents, he lacks scientific expertise/credentials, realizes it, and relies on advisers. Different reasons, same irrelevance on the science intellect point.

I'm not saying Bush isn't responsible for policy... He most definitely is, but that's not how this thread started. You can make a very strong argument that president Bush, as the man in the catbird seat, is ultimately responsible for all policy decisions... but that's different from deriding his intellect. He may have received bad counsel, but accepting counsel from the wrong people makes you a poor judge of character, not a moron. If he's guilty of anything, he's guilty of taking bad advice, and that's fairly common (ever go with a recommendation that turned out to be wrong? If so, then you're as dumb as Bush... welcome to the club)

You are trying to play politics by bringing Gore into this instead of discussing the merits of the accusations against the Bush administration.

No... I'm using Gore as a convenient foil to rebut an irrelevant point.

Worthless indeed... do try to direct your flames more appropriately in the future, AC.

Re:Sit down

[Anonymous Coward]

So you are using irrelevant points to "rebut" irrelevant points? Brilliant, Einstein. No wonder it's so difficult to find truly insightful posts on this wasteland of a website.

But your example doesn't show that...

[berenddeboer]

Your moth example just shows that variation in distribution of existing genetic material. It doesn't show any evolution at all.

The biston betularia must be the most repeated frauduleus claim in biology text books I suppose. For more, read "Piltdown Moth". Anyone taking a course in the philosophy of science will have come accross this as a classic example.

Re:But your example doesn't show that...

[raygundan]

I give up. Call it what you want. I was under the impression that microevolution *is* the variation in distribution of existing genetic material.

Merriam-Webster says microevolution is a "comparatively minor evolutionary change involving the accumulation of variations in populations usually below the species level" which I would take to mean that we didn't get outside of our species, which you would seem to be implying is a requirement for a change to qualify as evolution.

It's not like the moths turned into dogs, or something. I'm not implying they did anything BUT change in population distribution, and thought I was fairly clear on that in my post.

Re:But your example doesn't show that...

[RobinH]

Your moth example just shows that variation in distribution of existing genetic material. It doesn't show any evolution at all.

Ok, look: whales have hands inside their flippers. You can make up all the crazy irrational things you want to try and explain it away, but the simplest explanation is evolution.

When I was a kid, I believed in things like Santa Claus, God, the Tooth Fairy, and the Easter Bunny. All 4 are lies passed down by our parents to amuse us. It's just that the first generation forgot to tell their kids that God isn't real. Now we're adults. We can figure it out for ourselves.

Re:But your example doesn't show that...

[boarder]

Why don't you pay attention... Microevolution (a type of evolution) is DEFINED as a change in gene-frequency over time. Therefore, a "variation in distribution of existing genetic material" DOES show evolution... just not Macroevolution. He specifically stated the two different types in his email (just didn't use the terms). His post stated, I thought, rather explicitly that we haven't seen macro, only micro, and that he didn't think we'd ever prove macro.

People get so damned worked up over the term evolution that they don't pay attention to the fact that it is a pretty generic term. It can mean something as simple as gradual development.

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.

very little is unbiased.

[Tired_Blood]

All right. I can see how people outside the lead industry can be experts in the field, but that doesn't make them unbiased.

I find it impossible to have any opinion or report produced by a person to be unbiased. There are numerous reasons that a person can be labeled biased without financial motive.

During the researcher's tenure in developing their expertise, they would come to lean one way or another on various issues.

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps those outside the industry have an axe to grinde because they were never let in. Or maybe they believe that lead is the root cause for all of society's ills. Or maybe they can profit by replacing lead in various products. These people would not be from the lead industry, but would have expertise in the field and would be unquestionably biased.

Assuming that no opinion could be unbiased, the best a manager could do is hear from 'both' sides.

Having people that were involved with various industries is benefitial in various panels. Perhaps not for the CDC, but if everyone in such a panel has the same opinion, then what's the point of having a panel?

The trend towards homogeneous panels/councils/etc in administrations is the real problem. Not that some individuals may be lobbyists, but that they are from the same lobby.

Re:very little is unbiased.

[LMCBoy]

I'll play Devil's Advocate here. Perhaps those outside the industry have an axe to grinde because they were never let in. Or maybe they believe that lead is the root cause for all of society's ills. Or maybe they can profit by replacing lead in various products. These people would not be from the lead industry, but would have expertise in the field and would be unquestionably biased.

I acknowledge all of these possibilities, and you raise a good point. However, when the lead scientists which have no obvious prima facie bias are rejected from a panel and fired from their jobs, and their replacements are all on the payroll of the lead industry, this is troubling in the extreme.

Assuming that no opinion could be unbiased, the best a manager could do is hear from 'both' sides.

Except that we aren't talking about matters of opinion here, that's the whole point! The data *can* be honestly interpreted by following the scientific method. And who is the "manager" that you are talking about? We're talking about recommendations that have serious ramifications on people's health (not coincidentally, the people affected are largely the children of the poor). Every effort should be made to ensure that the decisions are based on the best scientific conclusions, and that the conclusions are not polluted by corporate influence.

Oh, boy!

[fenix down]

All I can tell is that threads like this really make me wish I could castrate people through the internet with my mind.

SAT scores

[layingMantis]

Gore got a 1355, Bush got a 1206. Actually i'm surprised Bush did that well. And btw, Tyro, grades don't indicate how much one has learned. One thing i've come to realize in school is that the desire to actually learn hurts you more than helps you. Teachers like you to stick with their crappy pdf note files, and just know the uninsightful factoids they tell you. Actually grasping concepts seems of little importance to shitty college progs, which most are. http://www.insidepolitics.org/heard/heard32300.htm l

I guess I must concede that Bush may be more of an asshole than he is a dumbass, but it is still close.

~mantis

Re:SAT scores

[Anonymous Coward]

Gore got a 1355, Bush got a 1206.

SAT scores always end with a zero.

Re:SAT scores

[Anonymous Coward]

I guess that source is lying.........or maybe that format is not the same as it was back 30+ years ago.

Re:SAT scores

[MrResistor]

I guess I must concede that Bush may be more of an asshole than he is a dumbass, but it is still close.

Every once in a while he does something that makes me think he's not really as dumb as he seems, but then he follows it up with 5 or 6 things that prove that, no, he really is that dumb. He may be controlled by assholes, but he himself is most certainly a dumbass.

michael is a TOOL

[thelizman]

It's no suprise that michael is posting this. Michael is to technoblogging what Jerry Springer is to reality. As other posters have pointed out, UCS is not a scientific group - they're a political activist group. This piece by the Centers for Policy Analysis (a group which is unabashed about its political aims) gives some examples of how UCS promotes junk science when necessary to promote idealogical ends.

No, I don't expect michael to know what he's talking about. He's not a nerd, he's just a political hack. I just wish Slashdot's Commanders in Cheif would fire his ass so we can get news that isn't tainted by his petty wingnut politics.

Re:michael is a TOOL

[abigor]

Hmm. So you're using evidence from one wingnut group to discredit what you consider to be another. Nice logic there.

"Junk science" from Nobel laureates...heh heh.

Re:michael is a TOOL

[prestidigital]

The articles I've read on this point out that the UCS organized the open letter, but that most of the contributors are NOT members. (Not only that, a number of Republicans who served other Republican presidents)

Make the pie higher! arranged by Richard Thompson

[spun]

The quotes have been arranged
for aesthetic reasons only
by Washington Post writer Richard Thompson.

MAKE THE PIE HIGHER
by George W. Bush
I think we all agree, the past is over.
This is still a dangerous world.
It's a world of madmen and uncertainty
and potential mental losses.
Rarely is the question asked
Is our children learning?
Will the highways of the internet
become more few?
How many hands have I shaked?
They misunderestimate me.
I am a pitbull on the pantleg of opportunity.
I know that the human being
and the fish can coexist.
Families is where our nation finds hope,
where our wings take dream.
Put food on your family!
Knock down the tollbooth!
Vulcanize Society!
Make the pie higher! Make the pie higher!

Re:These folks are confused, or enemies of the sta

[BorgCopyeditor]

He actually said "wartime president," I think.

Sonny: No, Pop can't do nothin' till he's better. I'm going to decide what's going to be done.
Tom: All right, but your war is costing us a lot of money, nothing's coming in...We can't do business...
Sonny: Well, neither can they! Don't worry about it.
Tom: They don't have our overhead...We can't afford a stalemate.
Sonny: Well, then, there ain't no more stalemate - I'm gonna end it by killin' that ol' bastard! I'm gonna...kill...
Tom: Yeah, well, you're getting a great reputation. I hope you're enjoying it.
Sonny: Well, you just do what I tell you to do. Goddamn it. If I had a wartime consigliere, a Sicilian, I wouldn't be in this shape! Pop had Genco, look what I got!

This is the guy he wants to compare himself to?

Unbelievable

[ArekRashan]

Look, rudeboy:

You don't have any fucking clue how much money the asshole makes. He says 90, and he is the most reliable source for that information in the context of this discussion. It's certainly a lot easier to believe his assessment of his own income than your infantile, clumsy rebuttal, "You do not make 90k".

I can't belive I'm actually seeing this shit, even on the interweb. A statement that you doubted his word regarding his income would have been meaningless, immature, and impolite. I can't find a strong enough adjective to describe the absolute lack of civility shown by your outright denial of his statement.

I can type 60 words per minute. This may or may not be a true statement, but in either case, telling me that I can't makes you look like the liar.

Don't take it personally; you're just a worthless shitbiscuit without a single redemptive quality.

Recommendations:
Don't use "First off". Don't begin a sentence with a numeral. And if something "goes without saying", it is better left unsaid. Also, if you insist on being an asshole, you could at least be an entertaining one.

Re:Unbelievable

[hesiod]

First off, don't be a fucking dick. I can begin a sentence any goddamned way I want. You think you're so fucking smart (and maybe you are, but I don't care or want to hear your shit), but if your last statement was true the phrase "goes without saying" would not exist. Therefore, you, sir, are a moron who is grasping at straws to insult me.

> He says 90, and he is the most reliable source for that information

So any time an anonymous coward says something unlikely, you automatically believe him? Wow. BTW, I don't doubt you can type 60 wpm.

Did you read his comment? He said if I would get off my ass & read a book I would make 40k/yr. That is absolutely false and even more rude than what I said. Of course, you are probobly the AC, otherwise you would not care. Assuming you are not, however, he also said he was "lazy and retarded" so am I supposed to automatically believe that too?

> telling me that I can't makes you look like the liar.

What? You really have zero grasp of the English language. It does not make me a liar, it means I doubt a dubious statement from an even more dubious source. Of course, I wouldn't expect someone with your double-digit IQ to understand that.

> I can't belive I'm actually seeing this shit, even on the interweb

You make yourself look so smart using words like "interweb." BTW, you misspelled "Intarweb."

> if you insist on being an asshole, you could at least be an entertaining one.

Pot...Kettle...

Christ man, get a fucking clue.

Oh yeah... YHBT. IHBT too, evidently.

Global Warming isnt the ONLY issue

[SubtleNuance]

This thread is speaks alot about global warming, and so does your SUV comment. But it is not the only issue with our wastefull, Consumer-driven industrial, oil-powered society.

Our stupidity is driving plants and animals into extinction. We are producting chemicals that the planet has never seen -- and its having dire consequences. We are producting ecosystem-overwhelming levels of things of all sorts, from anti-biotics in women's milk, hormones in cow's milk lowering the age of women's puberty, teflon showing up in humans, etc etc etc. We are conducting an experiment ON OURSELVES. We have no idea the lasting consequences of all this.

We are right to be concerned with Global Warming, but friends, dammit, its just a symptom of a much bigger problem.

Possible answer?

[Kaki Nix Sain]

Here's the biggest question: in an economic analysis of the effects of the Kyoto Treaty (and similar "environmental" efforts), why does the U.S. get raped economically, while no other countries do (certainly not to the degree the U.S. does)?

This is just a theory, I'll leave you to look for evidence about it, but perhaps countries are affected by such treaties roughly in proportion to the amount that they pollute and the U.S. pollutes more.

Just an observation...

[gillbates]

...well, partly because they've dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific truth...

Does this mean we should believe the Vatican about the existence of God? Since they've studied morality the longest, shouldn't they be the leading moral authority? Shouldn't our government consult with them about the morality of laws? - I mean, they've been studying it the longest.*

I happen to know of a great many "scientific" thinkers who go to great lengths to reject the morality espoused by the Catholic Church. It would seem that 2000 years of study is not enough to come to any definite conclusions regarding morality, but science can understand global warming completely after less than 200 years.

Just a thought. Maybe if people sat down and thought about it, they'd realize just how much we don't know about the world around us.

* - yes, I know there are older religions, but most can identify with Catholicism. Don't get upset...

The lowest common denomenator is the tv.

[composer777]

I hear that lowest common denomonator argument quite a bit. TV is the lowest common denomenator, not the people watching it. You can't find people less informed and more misled than the majority of newscasters. By the time someone makes it to broadcast TV, they've been trained about what's news and what isn't. They are used to being censored. That's their job, to brainwash everyone else. It's not about attracting viewers, it's about shaping the way people think.

That's why here in the US, CBS wouldn't run an ad by moveon during the Super Bowl (an American football championship that's one of the most widely watched events in the US). Their stance was that they didn't want to bring politics to the event. Of course, this is corporate censorship, not state censorship, so there's no issue there. If they would turn down advertiser money (which is their sole source of income) to avoid informing people of the issues, what makes you think they wouldn't censor their own televisions shows?

Clarification again.

[raygundan]

You are absolutely correct, and I hope no one took my post as trying to claim otherwise. This is indeed an example of microevolution. It does NOT indicate a change of species, as there were already variations across the species present. I thought by saying "primarily light colored" I was clear enough that there were already light-colored moths present before the massive soot-generation started. This is how microevolution works. Bacteria evolve resistance by this mechanism-- all the ones that aren't resistant die. The remainder breed, and you get high percentage of resistant bacteria. All that has changed is the proportion of resistant vs. nonresistant bacteria in the population-- both were present beforehand, just in different quantities.

This is not an example of a new species being created via evolution. That is exactly the type of evolution that is a theory, and will remain a theory until it is either superseded, disproven, or actually witnessed.

And even witnessing the evolution of a new species within our lifetimes will NOT put the creation part of the whole thing to bed. We can't ever prove things that happened when we weren't there-- best guesses on present-day evidence and religious explanations are the closest we will get. We'll need time machines before we have factual answers to that one.

Re:Who to believe? The Creationists!

[680x0]

Sorry, but the fact that they are creationists implies that they are not "quite intelligent, and very good in the fields of biology, physics, and mathematics". So, feel free to start ignoring their opinions.

Re:These folks are confused, or enemies of the sta

[Anonymous Coward]

Nope, he actually said "I'm a War President. I make decisions here in the Oval Office in foreign-policy matters with war on my mind. " See http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/4179618/ for a transcript. Be afraid. Be very afraid.

you make me wanna rant, you troll

[gomel]

Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.

what a f*c@$ng pile of bullshit!

show every sign of increasing? like what, they grow themselves? show me that coal mine which magically fills itself back to full because i have to see it.

or maybe i got the wrong information and the earth actually is flat so its surface is infinite. that way, we can always go forward and discover ever more coal deposits and will do so forever?

Who can you trust? No one, it's human nature.

[Linuxathome]

As a scientist, I hear you my man -- you're preaching to the choir. But this situation is obviously mired in politics for the simple fact that it attacks the Bush administration. To convince non-science minded individuals the "truth" behind this matter is as difficult as convincing Christians that Jesus was not Christ. Now on the other hand, putting blind trust on what these scientists say is, let's face it, also against human nature -- heck, it's against the scientific process (i.e. the process of science is to question the observed phenomenon). So even if it is 20 Nobel laureates, it doesn't mean squat to the vast majority of the voting population -- these are the only people who matter to Bush. Put it this way you can change what you said:

if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?

to what Catholics believe:

if you can't count on 20 Cardinals to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of Catholicism in our society, who on earth can you trust?

Those who aren't Catholics will think otherwise. Maybe that's not that great of an example, but you get my point, I hope. And so those who aren't scientists -- even some scientists themselves! -- will think otherwise of the UCS' report.

Oh, gee

[Anonymous Coward]

What a brave and noble sacrifice. Instead of hiding behind a "coward cloak", we know your true identity, which is that you are.. um.. "nightsweat". So if we want to hold you accountable for your words, all we have to do is ..e rrr... however it is you find someone knowing only that they are probably (but not necessarily) in the united states and that they went by the handle "nightsweat" with no contact information at one point on a website.

Re:Oh, gee

[nightsweat]

I'm sorry, is this the same nutfree coward or a new one? I can't tell.

Rambo=True American Hero

[yosemite]

The cultural relics of the past, movie gems like Rambo III for instance, go a long way towards illustrating the public perception at that time. Whether or not the movie is a pile of shit is irrelevent. Rambo is an true blue, grade-A, commie-fighting, gung-ho American. The fact that he hooks up with the (cia backed) freedom fighters to fight the commies is awesome!! Now just imagine when that movie first came out, someone getting up and saying

"Rambo is a terrorist for helping those terrorists"

Are you kidding me? they would have had their ass kicked just for saying that shit. It strange now how people don't hesitate to call the afghanis "terrorists" now. But back then when context was different (and our interests aligned) we did not hesitate to call them freedom fighters. Which is it? some of those same "freedom fighter" fought us and are now "terrorists".

Which is it????

Re:Rambo=True American Hero

[Anonymous Coward]

Those who fought against the Soviets fought against an army. They did not fly planes into buildings, killing people who were armed with nothing but cell phones and ball-point pens.

some of those same "freedom fighter" fought us and are now "terrorists".

Yeah, and a lot of them fought with us to take their country back from the Taliban (freedom fighters?). Nobody...at least no one with knowledge of the situation, calls "Afghanis" terrorists. They call al Qaeda terrorists, and they oppose the Taliban for supporting and harboring al Qaeda. Calling the average person in Afghanistan a terrorist is ludicrous and ignorant.

Re:Rambo=True American Hero

[yosemite]

here

"The leadership of al Qaeda has great influence in Afghanistan and supports the Taliban regime in controlling most of that country. In Afghanistan, we see al Qaeda's vision for the world."

What does the part in italics mean? that all afghanis are terrorists, or just most of them, or just those in charge? If it is just those in charge, are they terrorists or generals? are the men fighting soldiers in an army or members of al queda? where is the distinction?

.As for the northern Aliance, They are nothing more the mercenaries. We looked around for a existing faction that was alligned with our goals and paid them off to do our dirty work. Need I remind you of the warlord Dostum who killed ~3-5 thousand prisoners? Yep, we were working with him to fight "al Qaeda's vision"/taliban/terrorists. In fact the people that we worked with to overthrow the taliban bore a striking resemblence TO the taliban. Does that mean they are terrorists to? These labels, terrorists/freedom fighter are meaningless unless meaning is ascribed to them by the relevent authorities.

Re:Rambo=True American Hero

[AliasF97]

If I were to make the statement: "In Europe, we have seen some of the most inhumane leaders come to power," am I saying that all leaders in Europe are inhumane? Of course not. I think the problem is in your interpretation.

Re:Rambo=True American Hero

[yosemite]

I think the problem is in your interpretation.

Or maybe it's everyone else's

starving kids in africa

[jonskerr]

Hey, Floyd fan, kids in africa are starving because corporations patent the genes of grains they develop, give away hybrid grains that don't produce seeds that'll grow, then let their victims starve because they can no longer grow food to feed themselves or afford to pay for seed. (BTW, charitable organizations seldom send food to africa from the US in cars. Your original post was about cars.)
All of the things you list above (infant mortality, illiteracy, dying 'early') are all being exacerbated by policies of corporate-controlled america, which have been gaining more and more control of our country starting under Reagan, getting worse under the Bushes AND Clinton. Remember NAFTA? It's still affecting our lives, weakening our unions and putting the middle class right on the edge in this country. Thanks to democrats selling out just like the GOP. to Money.
PS: if you hate those damned environmentalists so much, why don't you show us all up and move to Love Canal, or Three Mile Island? Or Chernobyl? Or go drink some that water with Chomium 6 in it like they had in "Erin Brokovitch". Yum!

Re:starving kids in africa

[johnlcallaway]

Quite the rant. Angry are we about things that we don't agree with but can't change? You must be about 23 I would guess. Don't worry, you'll get over it.

First of, get your facts about grain right. Our farmers have the exact same issue. This is a business decisions from companies that have spent millions of dollars to develop strains that improve upon the original plants and want to make a profit. If you don't like that, move to a communist or socialist country. There are plenty of natural grains that produce lower volumes and are less disease resistant that they can grow. I can buy all kinds in the local grocery store. I've been growing the same tomato plants for years.

As for the cars, I made a statement about SUVs and you made a statement about gas guzzlers. I would put trucks, planes, and boats all in the same category. If you are against one, you should be against the other. If you are not, then the only difference between you and me is the level of inconvienece we are willing to tolerate. My point was I drive my truck far less than many suburban environmentalists drive their KIAs, so who is the worse polluter. My son was a good example of a hypocrite. He wouldn't own a car because of the pollution and corporate policies, but he didn't mind hitch hicking and and getting rides from those who did.

I don't get your point about infant mortality, et. al. My point was those 'good ole days' when people didn't drive cars were a lot more deadly and less pleasant a time to live in than our current excessive culture. I wouldn't trade my 75+ life expectancy for their 35. It is hard enough for one family live off the land, but try 6 billion people. Wouldn't happen if it wasn't for those corporations you rail.

Kids in Africa are starving for many reasons, among them that their governments are corrupt and exploit them and the Christian missionaries forced them to stop their nomadic ways and build civilized homes. (We can ignore the fact that they have been basically starving for thousands of years, it's tough living off the land. Bleeding hearts have convinced Americans that you need shoes in an area where shoes where virtually unknown 50 years ago.) For thousands of years they were able to move their village every few years when they exhausted the local resources and in 20-30 years, nature took care of replenishing that area just in time for them to come back. It took the f*cking Christians to break them of that habit and condemn them to their current 'civilized' existance.

Now your last paragraph at least had some validity to it. But blaming all corporate companies for the actions of a few is the same as blaming all blacks or hispanics because of a few crimes.

We're talking about the *distortion* of science

[sdedeo]

We're talking about the distortion of science. Not science.

If you look at the report, what you will see is not a discussion of a particular scientific theory or set of theories.

You are correct that science is not a handmill to grind out fact (although science does establish facts in the long run.) I have made similar points on /. about this (and gotten flamed for my patience.)

But the report is discussing how Bush's administration is suppressing scientific debate for ideological reasons. They are selecting against people who hold particular, well established and reasonable views that happen to clash with the White House ideology. They are excluding qualified scientists and preferrentially choosing people who are involved in the very industries they are meant to regulate. They are denying funding to AIDS researchers who use "hot button" words.

20 Nobel Prizewinners may be wrong about science. But they've seen enough of how science should be done to be accurate judges of when it's being distorted.

More Political Crap

[Anonymous Coward]

This is yet another example of why I'm quickly
becoming disillusioned with the Linux movement.
It is becoming *very* political in all aspects.
I don't want to be part of a technical community
which continually subjects everything to some
type of political litmus test. I'm *not* a Bush
fan, but at the same time, I'm not going to get
behind extreme left-wing politics, especially if
my chosen profession is going to be subjected
to it. If this is the trend that the Linux
community is going to continue in then its time
for some reform that lets us focus on creating
solutions that are free of political encumber-
ences, including licenses with political and economic motives.

Re:More Political Crap

[prestidigital]

I think this is exactly what the scientists are trying to say. i.e., no matter how hard you try, politics can't change science, so please stop trying.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Uh-huh, sure... All Scientists are pure of
heart, and they walk on water; especially
Scientists who political aspirations are
on the left, eh???

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[AliasF97]

Scientists you say? UCS is a group of environmentalists, not scientists. Where, in their "statement" do you see scientific proof of their claims? I see:

** 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.

Who has more credibility?

[GuyMontag2]

How can there be any debate over who has more credibility? On the one side is a bunch of conservative cronies who, if they could have their way, would keep evolution out of schools, completely remove any education mentioning birth control, strip ALL environmental regulations, etc. etc.

On the other hand we have a large group of presitigous scientists, researchers, Nobel Laureates, medical experts, university chairs and presidents, etc., some of whom were advisors to republican presidents and many of whom aren't even affiliated in any way with the Union of Concerned Scientists. One of the guys is a former Nixon/Ford guy and he basically says Nixon was like Galileo compared to Bush.

Even if I were Republican, I'd take the 20 Nobel Laureates over Bush, DeLay, Cheney, etc.

P.S. This has absolutely nothing to do with Al Gore or Saddam Hussein. Gore isn't president and Saddam being bad doesn't necessarily make Bush good. This is about science, and how Bush's brand of conservatism is playing games with it to suit their agenda.

Bah, Pugwash !

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, and by the way :
"No. The island is *not* sinking !"

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[1u3hr]

Scientists you say? UCS is a group of environmentalists, not scientists.

"Among the statement signers are: Philip W. Anderson*, David Baltimore*, Paul Berg*, Lewis Branscomb, Thomas Eisner*, Jerome Friedman, Richard Garwin*, Walter Kohn*, Neal Lane, Leon Lederman*, Mario Molina, W.K.H. Panofsky*, F. Sherwood Rowland, J. Robert Schrieffer*, Richard Smalley, Harold E. Varmus*, Steven Weinberg*, E.O. Wilson*.
* National Medal of Science, Nobel laureate"

Policy != Censorship

[mosb1000]

Let me get this right, they're saying that by making policy based on advice by scientists other than them, the Bush administration is censuring them? Forgive me if I'm wrong, but the findings of these agencies are still published are they not? If they were really being censured, we wouldn't be having this conversation, because none of this information would be public domain. No, this is really just a bunch of people whining because the policy that gets made isn't the policy they want to see get made. Well, I hate to say it, but the Bush Administration is not required to follow their recommendations no matter what they received the Nobel prize for, and that's a fact.

Let's review Bush's record..

[GuyMontag2]

2001 - Bush places crippling restrictions on stem cell research because the cells come from leftover embryos from fertility clinics that are going to be discarded anyway. Despite the fact that stem cell research is one of the most promising areas of medical research since genome mapping, Bush doesn't want to "condone abortion".

2002 - Bush's flagship environmental policy is the "Healthy Forest Initiative", which aims to reduce forest fires by easing logging restrictions in National Forests (look it up yourself!) Actually that one's good logic- less forests, less forest fires!

2003 Bush appoints Mike Levitt, the pro-industry Republican governor from Utah to head the EPA.

The administration has axed education programs that mention birth control, (he's got an "abstinence only" policy despite zero evidence showing that that works -theres even evidence it might be counter-effective), issued the "Global Gag Rule", gutted the Clean Air Act, forced the EPA to cut any mention of global warming from their state of the environment report, etc. etc..

Seriously, the list goes on and on..

Re:Let's review Bush's record..

[yipper]

It sounds to me like those are policy decisions... not science.

When a Nobel laurate says something about public policy I think it should get attention. After all, they are supposed to be people who have shown they can exercise their mind. But beyond that they are just another Barbara Streisand or Ed Asner.

Our society suffers a lot from the confusion of popularity and expertise.

As a Christian I have fundamental disagreement with the strict naturalism that has changed science from a method into a philosophy. So I am inclined to question almost everything a "scientist" says that goes beyond their immediate (as in local, at-hand) application of the scientific method.

Re:Let's review Bush's record..

[rico23]

As a human I have fundamental disagreement with Christians who call any science they disagree with 'a philosophy'.

You seem to have so little faith in your God that you cannot believe what is observable and repeatable.

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.

let's not go overboard here...

[Anonymous Coward]

...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)...

Yet strangely, the people in charge of education in the US are whining for more money from the federal government and complaining about having to be able to show results (testing) and are asking to have the ability to spend it any way they want. Personally, I'd give them more money, if they did away with teacher "tenure" (heck, they have a really strong union with a grievence panel, why do they need tenure on top of that?) and if the education lobby would also agree to more testing (have to make sure graduates can read/write/calculate normally), I'd bet many people would be in favor of more money...

As a silly example of what can happen with today's system, "extra" money became available for schools that weren't performing very well (part of Bush's no-child-left-behind program). Apparently at some HS's with tight budgets (because local tax revenues are down), football was in danger because of Title IX requirements for equal spending for male/female sports (basically each $1 going to football requires $2 to spend). With the "extra" money, they found they could have football (and even in some cases a dedicated football coach "employee", not teacher) if they engaged a little bit of creative accounting. The school boards budgetted less money on teachers and books (and used the "extra" federal money to cover that) and freed up their normal budget dollars to spend on Title IX sports using an "accounting" trick to bypass the funding "earmarks". No skin off their noses, they treated the "extra" money as if it came from the sky and the and football supporters seemed to be happy. Argh!

I'm always puzzled why the so-called education advocates seem to think "extra" money for education has to come through the US federal government. In my experience, the more times money changes hands, the less you get for your buck (lots of mouths to feed in between). Seems to me that if we paid more tax money to local governments and less tax money to the feds, teachers would probably make out better if education was funded through local governments only (police, firefolks, etc generally get money through local governments and they generally get paid more than teachers). Then the "control" would be more local and a strong national teacher's union would probably have all the hapless/clueless local governments at their feet.

And if the folks on the other side of the country want to spend their own tax money on football, so be it. Just don't spend my money in a place I can't vote the local school board out of office... (my history is a bit rusty, but didn't some country fight a revolutionary war on some tax representation issue?)

But I digress... ;^)

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Guuge]

really? no proof given though, huh?

Proof of the scientific studies or proof of government omissions? It should be obvious that they don't need to republish the results of previous studies in this report.

Highly qualified according to whom? UCS?

Ah, but there are such things as verifiable scientific qualifications. Of course, a little healthy skepticism is good too. You are free to verify the findings of the report on your own. This isn't politics; it's science.

That's specific? Not a single incident is cited.

I can't access the report right now, but I still managed to find this from cnn.com:

Among the examples cited in the union's report:

* A 2003 report that the administration sought changes in an Environmental Protection Agency climate study, including deletion of a 1,000-year temperature record and removal of reference to a study that attributed some of global warming to human activity.

* A delay in an EPA report on mercury pollution from some power plants.

* A charge that the administration pressed the Centers for Disease Control to end a project called "Programs that Work," which found sex education programs that did not insist only on abstinence were still effective.

I'm surprised that you couldn't find the examples yourself. Did you read the actual report or just an article about the report?

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."

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

How many scientists signed the petition? 60? Hmm...they were able to get a lot more to sign their global warming, pro kyoto treaty petition (1,600, including 110 Nobel laureates). Of course, this was met with a counter petition, which 17,000 scientists signed. But of course this was, according to UCS, a "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation." So, if they were only able to muster up 60 signatures for this one, then that tells me that they had a whole lot of trouble rallying support.

Re:michael is a TOOL - typo

[prestidigital]

a number *are* Republicans (not "of")

Re:FUCKING HYPOCRISY - yeah, I know "here on /." N

[Mike A.]

In that case, the correct moderation status was neither Troll nor Off-Topic, but Redundant.

If it's not redundant, why don't you actually try refuting any of those statements. Go ahead, I'll wait.

Ok, lets translate for John Marburger

[zekt]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

Since John obviously can't read between the lines to the real meaning - well give it to him bluntly

We (the scientists who signed this), believe that you are seen as a joke in the scientific community because of you inability to communicate the exact meaning of the science to the people you report to.

Do you think John will understand that?

Mod parent up?

[mosb1000]

The parrent doesn't seem to be flaimbait or a troll. I am confused as to why it is modded as such.

Re:Mod parent up?

[jhylkema]

Ahh, Grasshopper, thou hast not yet learned The Way of /.

The Way of /. is this - if it doesn't parrot the liberal line, if it suggests that private, especially intellectual, property is good, it is blasphemous and is modded accordingly. Now, when Apple commits all manner of corporate, nay Gatesian, mortal sins, then it's just "being competitive."

If a post suggests that America is anything other than the Great Satan, it is similarly blasphemous.

(Mod me to hell, I'm maxed on karma.)

omniscient

[Anonymous Coward]

believe
often in fields they are not experienced in
alluded to
Nobel
laureates
omniscient

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Guuge]

Ha, good one! But you forget that this is a report and that was a petition. The former needs only the signatures of the participants, while the latter needs the signatures of as many people as possible.

WTF?

[mosb1000]

Why is this comment flamebait? Something tells me that people haven't been reading the moderator guidelines.

Re:Don't see any Nobels for climatology in that li

[mosb1000]

I think you mised the parent's point, none of these things have anything to do with the environmental sciences.

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.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[tjstork]

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.

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.

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.

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.

PARENT NOT A SCIENTIST, MOD DOWN!!

[Anonymous Coward]

Just because this guy's a member of this little club, it doesn't make him a scientist, and he's not; he's an intern.

Where can I sign up so I can make people think I'm speaking from a position of knowledge and not simply spewing emotional rhetoric?

Uh-huh, once more.

[Grendel Drago]

Look, I think it's a little hard to believe that someone with a yearly income three orders of magnitude greater than mine works three orders of magnitude harder, or is three orders of magnitude smarter, or more worthy, or anything.

And furthermore, even placing an equivalent proportional tax rate on the wealthy and the poor isn't really equivalent. Asking someone making $10k a year to give half is income in taxes is a little different from asking someone making $500k a year to do the same.

I made $13,000 last year in a job that paid $11,500.

So... you've been eBaying stolen office supplies, then?

--grendel drago

Bush chokes on pretzel, can't find WMDs in Iraq...

[blueberry(4*atan(1))]

Nelson: Ha-Haaa! Comic Book Store Guy: Worst. President. Ever.

*Summarily* shot?

[Grendel Drago]

Wait. If someone were caught and shot without trial, bail or hearing... where would someone even hear about it? This falls under the list of things I'm told are conveniently kept secret, like the supposedly numerous plots handily foiled with those oh-so-necessary Patriot Act powers. You've changed the question, and are now asking me to prove something that, by definition, can't be proven. No dice.

--grendel drago

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Good troll.

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.

Moo

[Chacham]

which includes 20 Nobel laureates

Considering Arch-Terrorist Yasser Arafat is also a Nobel Prize Laureate, being an NPL is an insult, not a booster for credence. What next? Are they Time's Man of the Year as well? Give me a break.

The worst part about it is that Arafat got a prize started by Alfred Nobel, to *counteract* the terrible effect that the very dynamite that Arafat uses and promotes, causes.

The Nobel Prize is a political prize. Had it been merely recognition, it wouldn't involve money. The thought that this is used to bolster the recipient's apoliticality is absolutely hilarious.

Slashdot keeps politicking, and still keeps on ticking. Amazing.

Re:Moo

[Cackmobile]

He got the prize for the Oslo peace accord. And yes he deserves it. U obviously believe the US/Isreali gov lies. Maybe once he was a terrorist but so was Nelson Mandela.

Re:Moo

[Chacham]

U obviously believe the US/Isreali gov lies.

You mean that you believe that the US and Israeli governments lie. I believe they tell the truth.

MOD PARENT DOWN

[Anonymous Coward]

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

no, I couldn't access the report either. The info. that I got I obtained from UCS' website. Look, my point is that, for "scientists" they really don't go into any structured methods in their criticism. I was also pointing out that this is all too common for UCS. That's because they are nothing more than an advocacy group. When they can get a few scientists to sign off on something, they claim that they are speaking for the scientific community. "See? We even have 'scientists' in our name! We must be legit." The subtitle on their website even shows that they are an environmental advocacy group. Sixty scientists do not represent the entire scientific community, unless we are hopelessly short on scientists these days. As I wrote before, they were able to obtain many more signatures for one of their previous complaints (1,600), though, when 17,000 other scientists argued against them, UCS immediately discredited their statements. Now, are some scientists angry because they think that things are being surpressed? I'm sure some are, probably because the administration is taking the advice of other scientists. Could there be validity to UCS' arguments? I don't know, they seem to stab in the dark a lot on previous arguments that they've made. Go to their website and read some of their hot topics. It's not about whether you agree with them or not, but for scientists they never seem to have any hard proof for their arguments. But there could be some validity to this argument. I for one though, just find it hard to take an advocacy group like UCS' word for it. Bush is a real easy target right now, some of it being for good reason, so this seems like a pretty good time to try and put a nail in his coffin, perhaps to further an agenda. And I disagree...this stinks of politics, not science.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[skinfitz]

You see, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.

This reminds me of when you make a typo when in the middle of an argument on /.

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?

Re:Get over yourselves.

[onallama]

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.

Exactly half the problems?

You so terrorist.

[jotaeleemeese]

Are you saying, you unpatriotic, anty western, freedom hater, child molester, are you saying tha thge leader of the freeworld is using a variation of the Chewbacca defense?

I hope you like mambo, you will need in in Gauntanamo.

Oy yes, the reporters.

[jotaeleemeese]

All would be great if your hero Bush and his gang of four (Cheney, Rumsfield, Rice and regrettably Powell) where not pretending they were absolutely sure the weapons existed.

They showed us satellite photographs, they have witnesses (that has turned out where parroting what Rumsfeld and his chums wanted to hear).

You have been lied or misled, and here you are, blaming the journalists for asking the most basic question: you say this was so, why it is not?

Uh...

[jotaeleemeese]

.... are you sying these pople are ideologaically dishonest in order to gain power?

If they are like that to woe supporters, what woul stop them to be equally deceitful to get ahead of detractors?

In other words: dear USians, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU SMOKING!

Yes, but...

[jotaeleemeese]

being the PM and his cabinet the executive and part of the legislative, the balance of power is greatly diminished.

Re:Meet the New Religious Fanatics: Science As God

[Cackmobile]

Which was started by Ariel Sharons deliverate provocation by going onto the Temple Mount. How many thousands of Palestinians have been killed. THis conflict is nopt one sided. both are to blame. Nelson Mandela was once a terrorists too.

Re:Meet the New Religious Fanatics: Science As God

[Cackmobile]

also there is a BIG difference between nobel peace prizes and nobel science prizes.

Oh, the irony.

[Black Parrot]

MY GOD PEOPLE. You are criticizing the Bush Administration for being stupid and you can't even spell the words "controversial" or "doctering." "Your" in the context of your subject line should be "You're", which is a contraction for "You are."
"Administration" beings with a vowel, and should therefore be preceded with the antecedent "an" not "a."

If you are going to throw intellectual stones, make sure your brain isn't living in a glass skull.

I love Slashdot. A bunch of illiterate, reactionary, left-wing nutcases hurling insults at people smarter and more successful than they are.

d00d! You need a comma in "MY GOD, PEOPLE".

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[sycodon]

Here is an article that, in addition to being very funny, provides an interesting insight to the scientific community.

http://www.info.ucl.ac.be/people/PVR/decon.html

In a nutshell it describes how most academia (which for all practical matters is the "Science" being discusses here) is caught in a feedback loop.

The problem is like minded people, espousing like minded theories, reviewing like minded peers.

Take Global Warming as an example. To hear the news media talk about it, Global Warming is a Fact. Yet there are plenty of well respected scientists that are not convinced either of its existence (in terms of Man being a causal factor) or of its importance (it may exist, but it's not going to destroy mankind). When there is credible dissent on such a theory, would it not be wise to have the dissenters a part of the review process?

Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[cryptochrome]

Of course this is just one example, and a highly inflammatory one at that. But the fact remains that it all boils down to the administration wanting to have some dissenting voices weigh in on scientific issues when public policy is affected.

Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.

But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies that do the hard work and give reasoned explanations, but the ones that tell you what you want to support your policy even if they have to exaggerate/make up/cherry-pick it. It would be a recipe for disaster - you might even go to war on false pretenses and a completly wrong idea of the actual costs involved!

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[cryptochrome]

Heh heh. Well, there's a fine line between dogged determination and pedanticity. The main difference here being that science matters, and slashdot typos (along with faulty statements regarding computers, entertainment, etc.) don't.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[sycodon]

Yeah... dissenting voices that just happen to have little to no credibility in the wider scientific community, and who are paid by the lobbies of prominent administration allies, and who conviniently offer theories that support the administrations policies.

I forget, who is it that decides which scientist is credible? And I guess the others are not paid by the lobbies of prominent administration detractors. And of course their theories don't conviniently support the agenda of the "others".

Science is as political as any other dicipline.

But this administration wouldn't use experts like that. Why, that would be like not listening to the intelligence agencies....blah, blah, blah

Let's stay focused here.

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.

[AliasF97]

Ah, okay, so let me go write up a report, have five people sign it, and then claim that I am speaking for all of humanity. How would that fly?

btw didn't mean to post anonymously in response to your last two posts...just forgot to log in.

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:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[sycodon]

Certainly, though, the Bush administration doesn't hold a monopoly on bad science.

Agreed. Every interest group will view science through their own templates; Conservatives, Liberals, Environmentalists, Creationists, etc.

And these templates have affected public policy time and time again.

It's a natural thing that the group in power gets to choose the current template.

It's also a natural thing that the group out of power gets whine about it.

The Truth lies somewhere in between.

and a textual correction to my last post

[raygundan]

Where I said:

"I was clear enough that there were already light-colored moths present before the massive soot-generation started."

I meant to type:

"I was clear enough that there were already dark-colored and light-colored moths present before the massive soot generation started."

Sorry for any confusion. I'm just trying to clear up terms for everybody. Saying things like "evolution doesn't happen" just makes you look foolish when you argue with the sciency types, because by the accepted definition, it does happen and has happened within recent history. Make your argument clearer by stating that you believe evolution does not create new species or is not responsible for creating people, if you wish.

That said, I'm a sciency type, and I would appreciate it noted that I have tried to be fair and balanced here while pointing this out. I'm not trying to sell anybody my beliefs, only pointing out the small part of the idea of "evolution" that is testable and tested fact. The rest of it is, and will remain for the forseeable future, only a theory.

And those models are the problem

[Mycroft_514]

Try going to www.junkscience.com and reading up on what is there about the "quality" of those models you think so much of.

The Scientists?

[hexgrid]

What's all this talk about "the scientists"?

It's not like a bunch of concerned scientists got together one day for the purposes of releasing this statement- the USC is an established political activist group like any other, with a very specific agenda.

They wouldn't give two whits if scientific data was being distorted to support THIER views. In fact, they're probably not above doing so themselves! I mean, there ARE scientists who disagree with them. Do you think those views, or the evidence that supports them, will be presented fairly on the UCS Web site?

(note- this isn't at all a defense of George Bush. Just a healthy dose of political skepticism, because I think skepticism is pretty cool.)

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Guuge]

If this were an isolated event, then maybe I would agree with you. But this is part of a larger trend of frustration at the administration for the reasons outlined in the report. I don't know how trustworthy these UCS folks are, but they are giving a strong voice to a concern that many people have. I'd rather see this become an issue than swept under the carpet. What's most important to me is that UCS has not made an irrefutable claim. A third party can look at the evidence and choose to support them, or not.

Now, when someone makes a completely partisan statement, they claim without evidence (or knowingly with bad evidence). I don't feel that UCS has made such a statement.

Admittedly, this report released at this time is necessarily going to become political. But again, there's no harm if this becomes an investigated issue and not some smear like the 'Al Gore creating the internet' debacle.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Guuge]

Be reasonable. No one is claiming to be the voice of humanity. It's a report. Reports are often inaccurate, but if no one publishes anything then we don't get very far, do we?

I have a better idea

[danaris]

I think a 10 year term is much better than a 4 year term because it would give the office holder at least 5 - 7 years before they would have to worry about reelection right after they enter office

I've a better idea. How about we just never let a sitting president run for re-election? That way, they would actually pay attention to what they were supposed to be doing for four years, rather than taking a year or more off their job to campaign for re-election. Yes, they'd probably be supporting their favourite new candidate for the job, but I don't think that takes as much time away as actually campaigning does. If we expanded this to all elected political offices, I think this would go a long way toward helping our elected officials do their jobs right all the time. They could, of course, run again next time (provided they haven't already had their limit of terms). As it is, incumbents all over the political map have very significant advantages. Here in New York State, we've had very low turnover for the past 2 decades...and we also haven't passed a budget on time any year for the past 20 years. Getting some of the old deadwood out of the state legislature might help that.

I realize that in many cases the incumbents have good experience, and might do a better job than whoever replaces them. But they can run again next time, and prove it. At least that way, there would be change, rather than, in many places, the same faces for 20+ years straight. And, in the case of the Presidency, we'd have a national leader more focused on doing his job than getting money and support for his re-election campaign.

Dan Aris

Leaded gasoline has a mixed story

[tjstork]

It is interesting that you tout the removal of lead from gasoline as a clear cut triumph of science, but the reality is far mixed.

The removal of leaded gasoline helped destroy detroit and the american manufacturing base. So, yeah, we are breathing cleaner air, and saving the lives of a few thousand people for it, but, the price has been that millions of people had their lives destroyed because the retooling required to make engines that effectively run on leadless gasoline helped undermine american manufacturing sovereignty.

Had Richard Nixon not founded the EPA, we might have actually had avoided the destruction of the American middle class. So, yeah, you can science is an absolute, lead is clearly bad. But, relentlessly implementing without a sober examination of the actual cost of doing so is simply, um, bad science. Why not have a cost benefit breakdown for environmental legislation - isn't that, um, scientific?

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).

thank you

[rbird76]

Thank you for your comment. I made the mistake of using (bias = having an opinion on the object of an analysis) rather than what it should have been, which is (I think) (bias = an opinion which determines the outcome of one's analysis). I probably would have been better off saying "because the UCS has a political position doesn't render their commentary incorrect" instead of what I did say.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, the previous administration was certainly supporting their pre-conceived notions.

Keep in mind that "Experts in the Field" can also be wrong. The work of some experts in the climate science field can't be duplicated (except by them), and they try to block competing viewpoints from being considered.

Now, go read Al Gore's book on Earth and see how much sense that makes...

Re:Scientists. Hate. Al Gore Science.

[Anonymous Coward]

Speaking of Al Gore and science -- remember he tried to get a satellite put between the Earth and the Sun just to produce a view of the Earth?

Well, there is a point where such a satellite could be placed. But it is so far that it would have to carry a powerful telescope, and would need quite an amount of fuel to get out there. This wouldn't be a football that could be tossed out by the Shuttle.

Also, if you have seen your local TV weather, you know that there already are weather satellites which are producing live images of Earth. If you really want to, the images could be stitched together. Gore wanted a hardware solution when similar data is already available.

One small correction.

[Anonymous Coward]

Tetraethyl lead, not tetrahedral lead.

What triggered the Recession

[billstewart]

The recession was triggered by a couple of things

• Greenspan jacking up interest rates rapidly in early 2000, trashing any interest-rate-sensitive businesses. I find it hard to believe that this wasn't politically motivated. After the election he jacked it back down, but the damage was done.
• The Microsoft Anti-Trust Suit - OK, you can blame the Clintonistas for this one. While it's popular in geekdom to dislike Microsoft, one of the most popular business models during the boom was "1. Start making something cool 2. Sell out to Cisco if it's hardware or Microsoft if it's software/services. 3. PROFIT", which provides an incentive for VCs to invest money in your company. When the anti-trust suit threatened to split Microsoft into pieces as well as gouging them for lots of money, that meant that selling out to Microsoft was nearly impossible for a couple of years, and the VCs got out of town.
• OK, so DogFoodOnLine.com wasn't really the best business model :-) There was a lot of natural shakeout, partly because the market accumulated enough experience to understand what web advertising was worth (since selling eyeballs to advertiser was the core of too many business plans, but nobody really knew what they were worth at the beginning.)

Meanwhile, the current Republican-dominated Congress has entirely no sense of responsibility on spending. They're worse than the Reagan-era Democrats, who were doing classic Keynesian inflation, and they're keeping all the Clinton pork barrel and adding new military-industrial pork barrel. Clinton was able to get the Fed to cut interest rates early in his administration, so he covered his budgets by refinancing the Reagan/Bush national debt at low interest. Bush can't do that, and if he tries inflating it away like the Reagan Democrat Congresses did, we'll get absolutely killed in the global market.

Science and Politics

[freeToThink]

If you ever read Steven Hawkings "A Brief History of Time" you are probably familiar with the "Turtles all the way down" story. I took the liberty of adapting it to this story. I call it:

Liberals, all the way down

A well-known group of scientists (some say it was The Union of Concerned Scientists) once made a public announcement on Scientific Integrity in Policymaking. They accused a presidential administration of distorting and suppressing findings that contradict administration policies, stacking panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry, and eliminating some advisory committees altogether. After the announcement, the administration's staunchest supporters said: "What you have told us is rubbish. The announcement is really a liberal attack on our beloved administration for political reasons." One of the scientists gave a superior smile before replying, "Do you dispute the evidence we present, or just the conclusions?" "You're very clever, Mr. Scientist, very clever," they said. "But it makes no difference at all, it's liberals all the way down."

That Haliburton pipeline conspiracy

[An dochasac]

P.S. Yes we Americans also know about the Haliburton pipeline conspiracy that was the cause for the war in afghanistan (being attacked at home had nothing to do with it)
I think Tom Clancy used it in one of his novels, the trouble is the pipeline was marginally strategic when the Soviet Union existed. Now it totally unecessary. Even if it were, Haliburton would find it much easier to maintain an oil pipeline under the totalitarian Taliban regime than under the current flegling democracy.
Don't tell anyone, but the real conspiracy is about freedom.
That's right, when women, men and people of all religions and ethnicities are empowered to make a better life for themeselves, prosperity will follow. If it doesn't, THEN start blaming the U.S. Until then, the problem is far more likely to be caused by your leader.