Slashdot Mirror
Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions
rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.
Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?
Obliteracy: Words with explosions
accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.
Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.
In the future, I would want to not be isolated from my friends in the Space Station.
Typical. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming some country has Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext to start a war.
Oops. Too late.
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.
To follow knowledge like a sinking star, / Beyond the utmost bound of human thought. ("Ulysses", Tennyson)
"We have to find a way to reach out to them and try to come to an understanding"
Being scientists the touchy-feely "reach out" approach won't work. They'll have to come up with solid data to refute these claims.
Money is a double edged sword: it's necessary for science & research but it can warp the results to be more business friendly.. and if the results are skewed then it's not science, it's bullshit.
disclaimer: I work in the biomedical research industry but not in the U.S.
Trolling is a art,
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.
Why are there 20 Nobel prize winners who can refute our findings, while we have an oaf as our head science guy?
Anything in parenthesis may (not) be ignored.
On their website is also a form to "sign" the statement yourself if you have an advanced degree in a scientific or technical field or are a graduate student pursuing one. Please read the report, though, before signing on.
Fark had the best headline for this:
"The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses science. The administration points out that the Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists disagrees"
Build Your Own PVR/HTPC news, reviews, &
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.
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.
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..
This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.
Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right?
Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?
The Union of Concerned Scientists
Oh c'mon, is that the best they could do? How about something totally original like... 'The League of Extraordinary Scientists' or the 'Fellowship of the Scientists'. That kind of thing!
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.
Dude
Are you serious? You really think Star Wars works? What are the "successful tests" you refer to - the ones where the missile had an attached radio beacon?
Jeesh, my guess is you are either not a scientist, or if so, work on an SDI related project.
Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".
I think, therefore I thought.
I'm amazed in seeing how far John Marburger has gone. I first knew him when he was the president of SUNY at Stony Brook when I was a student. He then went to Brookhaven National Labs and now he's the President's Science Advisor. I'll be real interested in how this whole event carries out. Personally I found Marburger to be a really upfront and a likeable person. I hope these high level politcs hasn't changed him.
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.
Here's one on wired. I saw that one before the headline here. As for who to believe, I'm inclined to go with twenty Nobel laureates and 40 other scientists over one Whitehouse full of politicians. No matter what your opinion on politics, don't forget to get out and vote this year and let them know how you feel about this and other issues.
~~ Behold the flying cow with a rail gun! ~~
Pi has been redefined as 3, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.
e has been redefined as 2, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.
Air purity regulations have been relaxed so reduced visibility will help obscur tall buildings from planes piloted by terrorists.
Water purity regulations have been relaxed so terrorists drinking it may go to their martyrdom sooner, without killing patriotic americans.
The etters '','' nd '' hve been strken from the lphbet to hnder terrorst communctons.
Your Presdent thnks you for dong your prt to defet the enmes of merc nd protect freedom!
A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
Umm... in 1980s terms they were absolutely 100% correct. Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment. The UCS said blocking 1000ish missiles at the same time would be prohibitively expensive (maybe quadrillions of dollars) if not impossible.
20 years later, we've got preliminary testing of anti-missiles that might be able to knock out at most a dozen incoming warheads, in a narrow region of airspace. Not nearly the same thing.
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.
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.
I'm not surprised by the lack of concern in the general population. We've still got school districts that are fighting to keep evolution out of the public schools! I'm afraid too many people's idea of science are shows like "FOX Special - "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?" If we as a society don't understand science, then our leaders will get away with shuffling off pseudo-science, self-serving, political-oriented junk on the country. If anyone wants a good read, Carl Sagan co-wrote this awesome "book about science vs. ignorance. /rant off
Tech News, Reviews and Tutorials
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...
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.
I find it troubling how much of a disconnect there is in the American public (and beyond) such that political opinion overshadows scientific fact and mathematical logic. Yet another sign our education system is in crisis.
Even sadder is that people generally don't care to understand the difference between 1 million and 1 billion and 1 trillion. It's all just some big number to them, but a few extra zeros really matter!
As always, I blame the news media (present company excluded, of course). They could really help bridge the gaps but they don't. I believe a law should be passed that every number ever stated in the news should be followed by an analogous per capita statstic. Like, $87 Billion more for the War on Iraq? That'll be $300 each per American. Funny.. Isn't that exactly what Bush gave us in the first tax year after he was elected?
Oops. Too much coffee. Back to work..
- Lebofsky
Bias helps to understand why someone takes a view and also what facts/theories/ideas they might be ignoring or not telling you about. It doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. While I have a bias against the Bush administration and their policy of allowing affected business to write their own regulations (e.g. Cheney and the secret meetings over energy policy), those businesses have knowledge that is useful to the process (they know things about their businesses and their process use that others wouldn't know) and should have input into what happens. The UCS has a bias as well, but they are made up of smart people who might also know something. The bias of these groups doesn't negate the validity of their arguments. Ultimately, the facts will out - the biases will explain why the UCS looked into these issues but do not deny the validity (or lack thereof) of their results.
Everything's fine. According to the president himself, we don't have nuclear weapons... we have nukular weapons... a totally different thing.
*whew*
-=sig=-
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.
I've seemed to notice that many /.-ers have this opinion of "nothing new". Yes, this is nothing new (especially if you're a skeptic of the Bush administration) but to me this means something big.
The reason is is that much of our bias, one way or another, has come from the media. Yes, much of it can be based on facts, but I think we'd all be lying to ourselves considering the amount of biased media out there. While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.
Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought out or created like special think tank groups out there. So, therefore, this sort of report gives our concerns about the Bush administration, in my opinion, real legitimacy. No longer can people say that our skepticism is the result of "liberal media".
"Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere." - Martin Luther King, Jr.
(As quoted from www.activistcash.com )
Unbiased? "Rigorus" scientific processes? Yea right.
Cruc
I am sure they didnt think they would have such a wealth of a source to write about.
members are seeing something, your seeing an ad
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.
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.
Here's what they've found:
Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple
They've found that Democrats cause cancer
Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay
JFK posthumously joins Republican Party
(for those with no humor, this was all taken from an episode of The Simpsons. If you're offending in any way, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.)
"Music is everybody's possession. It's only publishers who think that people own it." - John Lennon.
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.
This space for rent. Call 1-800-STEAK4U
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.
Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.
U.S. government corruption: Two Stories
Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.
Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-R
The Guardian:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,11511
Wired News:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00
Union of Concerned Scientists:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsir
Just a possibility: /. username, but at least you'll know my own biases (which I'm trying to change). I won't believe anyone who says they aren't even a little bit biased one way or another.
What if the report is to protect their reputation? It's feasible that 20 like biased scientists could group together to produce such a report that bolsters their previous findings as well as denounces the policies that were built on research by competing scientists. You can report scientific facts and still ignore other scientific facts that don't lead to the same conclusion and opinions as your own. Such research can draw extremely difference conclusions.
All I'm asking is that before you take Michael's "unbiased" commentary for fact, do some research of your own into these 20 scientists and I'll bet that you could draw pretty strong links from their findings to their funding.
I'm no Bush Administration lover, but I hate to see science bent for political reasons, to the right or the left. In the end, this could weaken valid environmental science, because we rush to use the data for our own political views. Example? Green Party. They could do more harm than good for environmental protection.
And for the record, I get flack for my
www.facebook.com/DareDefendOurRights
www.fairtax.org
Ten things you should know about Lomborg and the "Skeptical Environmentalist":o mborg_10_things.html
http://www.wri.org/press/mk_l
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
Being bitter is drinking poison and hoping someone else will die
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!
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)
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."
Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?
Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought
Bullshit. They can suffer from ideologies just as much as anyone. Some of the most ideologically blinkered people I have met in my life have had PhDs and were leaders in their professional fields. They get so many accolades in their field they think they can do no wrong elsewhere.
--- Ban humanity.
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI _final_fullreport.pdf
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.
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
That that is is not that that is not. That that is not is not that that is.
"[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
PHEM - party like it's 1997-2003!
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.
Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:
Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed
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.
Looking for an Information Security student project suggestion?
Try http://dotcrimeManifesto.com/
I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.
By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.
Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.
Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.
Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.
There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.
My two cents,
Iowa
"He who laughs last, didn't get the joke."-Cap
Look, I'ma War President [smirk]. Since 9/11, we realized we can't sit around waiting for things to happen. We need to act now. Al Queda operatives are trying to destroy America. Saddam was a dangerous evil dictator. By hurting big business, the terrorists will win. These are things we know. We haven't yet proven a link between Al Queda and these evil scientists, but rest assured, when we do find it, I will act upon that intelligence.
Here come da fudge!
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.
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!
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.
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).
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.
The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.
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.
mt
Today, the Bush administration said in a press release that 20 important US scientists had been arrested for terrorism charges under the Patriot Act
"73% of quotes on the Internet are made up" -Ben Franklin
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:
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.
See, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.
Why? Because when someone is clearly WRONG, they'll be damned if they let them pretend that they're right. And they especially hate it when psuedo-scientists try to use their profession.
Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized. There were a lot of reasons for Vatican II, but I'd argue that the Church's losing battle against the forces of reason was the major one. Darwin? They're still fighting tooth and nail. States can pass laws allowing "creation science" but they soon find they're the butt of ridicule and have acquired a reputation for ignorance. If Junior has any brains at all (which is debatable) he'll quietly start leaving the science to the scientists... and if he doesn't he'll soon find his intelligence will be a rather large issue.
---If you can't trust a nerd, who can you trust?
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?
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.