Slashdot Mirror
U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Finding
tree3075 writes "The LA Times is reporting that a survey by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility has found hundreds of U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service scientists have been instructed to change findings to favor business interests. I'm not surprised anymore when I read these things."
It is unfortunate that this happens in the scientific community... a community that should have an objective and unbiased interest/perspective.
Same story about "Global Warming". You have scientists that are paid by the oil companies to deny that global temperatures are increasing, when you have other "no biased' scientists that are giving direct proof of anthropogenic interference to the global climate system.
Yes! I listen to NYC Speedcore and do math at 3AM. I suggest you try it too.
Well, let's see. We've had two columnists paid off, party plants in the Presidential press pool, and 200 scientists now reporting they've been pressured to alter results. Yeah, those red staters really are so much smarter than those of us in the blue states. They memorize the propaganda more easily.
Every year I fear more and more for our country, and every year the average American just seems to be that much more baffled by bullshit. We're never going to see anything resembling what we -thought- was a "clean" electoral process again, I'm afraid.
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
Scientific honesty is the core and foundation of all of our discoverys. If kepler modified his measurements to fit into the then current view of things, astronomy would have been set back 100 years.
It's so encouraging to know that this administration so thoroughly distorts and perverts "facts" that would potentially interfere with business interests.
Intelligence, economics, science ...yep, they've got all the bases covered. Covered in fantasy, but covered nonetheless.
Um, why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate? No one else has done any bashing yet, even the article submitter didn't (amazingly.)
:-P
What really bothered me about your post, though, was this:
"1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;"
What, can we all just pick an arbitrary number of past years, whichever happens to overlap the point we want to push? Try 4 years? 20?
Thanks for the interesting tidbit though.
A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."
What's worse is that the American people didn't care to open their eyes to this and get rid of W when they had the chance. The scientists can only fight for so long before the next, brain washed generation is far more willing to churn out whatever studies are requested for the right price. Science is becoming another consumable, to be bought and sold like oil and food.
I guess there might be some hope left, but I'd look for a lot more of this in the next 4 years. I don't forsee a Worker's Revolution either, but I think we can do better and leave some things as unbuyable. Maybe I'm just a member of a dying breed that holds onto a bit of dignity. I mean, liars are going to have more money, and morals no longer seem to matter in our reltavistic society. I guess relativistic science is next, and I don't mean Special Relativity.
SAILING MISHAP
This story is about common people: folks like you and I who might happen to buy a nice slab of land on which to start a homestead and raise our families. The federal government has been VERY aggressive in recent decades in condemning the lands owned by private citizens due to the concerns of busybody environmentalists. This means that the land that YOU paid good money for and developed yourself has been TAKEN from you by the state, with no compensation, because they "suspect" that some endangered species might benefit from it.
Enough is enough - the pendulum has swung the other way. It is time for the government to RESPECT the property rights and the 4th Amendment rights of Americans. The federal government must STOP condemning privately owned land under "conservation" statutes. I for one am happy to see this new shift in strategy from the Department of Fish and Wildlife.
So, uh... This contradicts their findings how again?
science should be held above political agendas.
typical republican response:
its not happening.
it is happening, but clinton did it first.
left wing media conspiracy to slam bush. (which is pretty funny considering the whole talon news thing.)
cite another left wing conspiracy. BOOGIE MEN EVERYWHERE!
cite michael crichton.
cite a volcano! think of how many spotted owls have been killed by volcanos! think of how much C02 volcanos release.
like humans can actually damage nature, its so big!
but economic growth is important.
when the real response should be: really? lets fix this. remove politics from the system.
Bush sucks -- he sucks really hard. Just because Clinton was every bit as big an asshole, doesn't make Bush any less an asshole.
Face it -- America has become a fascist state, where science is censored in favour of business interests. All that matters anymore is that the trains run on time. The Democrats and the Republicans are both equally culpable, because they are exactly the same party. There's no difference between them anymore, nor has there been any difference for several decades. Clinton may have talked the liberal talk, and Bush may talk the conservative talk, but their policies are virtually indistinguishable.
You see that brine there? That's my brine.
once you pull something like this, you do not deserve to be called a "scientist" any longer
Who is behind "The Center for Media & Democracy"?
:P
Don't get me wrong, it does look like Activist Cash is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.
why did you already divide this into a Republican/Democrat debate?
He was planning ahead. See:
Example 1
Example 2
I'm sure there will be many more to follow.
He also brought it up because the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist and always have been. It's the same as when Fox News gets mentioned, just in the opposite direction this time.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
Who cares about either party? Tampering with the scientific process AT ALL must be condemned.
If political pressure was allowed to alter "scientific fact" then:
1: The sun would orbit the earth, the center of our solar system.
2: It would be the nature of things to move, then stop.
3: People could breath in space.
4: The earth would have suddenly come into existance a tad over five millenia ago.
5: Humans would have suddenly formed a few days after the earth.
6: Evolution would NOT have been proven to occur in a laboratory.
In all honesty, posts like the parent show growth in a disturbing trend. To wit, very well-spoken idiots who can completely miss the obvious in attempting to bash rivals at every irrelevent turn.
By the way, you know how the neoconservatives always claim that they never went to college because it's "just liberal brainwashing"? To me, that just screams "Sour grapes".
And your point is...
Looking back, it seems the UCS was correct. There is global warming, that is a fact. Almost no scientist will deny that fact.
www.archiphysics.com
Okay, so "more than half" of 30% makes it a little over 15%. So thats around 210+ scientists. Technically, the summary is right in saying "hundreds", but it sounds a whole lot more sensational than it really is.
Secondly, also from TFA
If that's not dodging the issue, I don't know what is. I would seriously like a spokesman for a scientific agency to give a better defense to his stand than that very vague statement that says nothing.False sensationalism and dodging aside, I believe this is a very serious issue. If the scientific integrity of this office has been reduced because of corporate pressures, there's very little faith left in me for any scientific agency. People generally assume that science works in the best interests of man, even though the results may go against him.
StrayByte.Net
Jeebus, you're an idiot. Nobody said anything about stopping all construction or all use of wood.
There are some trees that probably shouldn't be cut down and some places where we shouldn't be building new houses. That doesn't mean we have to revert to the stone age.
But hell, I guess that's what passes for rational argument among right wingers these days. Bush has people lie about inconvenient facts. Since his mindless followers don't have that kind of power, they resort to building strawmen to tear down.
- Old Man of the Mountain ---- "I want to disturb my neighbor"
root@sabbath:~# GET 'http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la -na-scientists10feb10,0,4954654.story?coll=la-home -nation' | grep -c -e "15|fifteen" ...now where did that number come from?
0
Nice "talking point" you have their chum. It should even last another 3 years. Don't wear it out.... OOOPS. Too late.
Someone had to do it.
Yes, indeed, let the Bush bashing begin.
anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar who would just LOVE to see an end to all environmental concerns
Anyone is free to make up their own minds about this, but allow me to illustrate a point:
Republicans are pushing for voluntary environmental controls. However, in publicly owned companies, the primary objective is to increase shareholder value. While it is an extreme example, a publicly held company could, in theory, be sued for complying with such regulations, as it would pull away capital but does not increase shareholder value in any way.
So how is it that the "voluntary controls" Republicans are doing something for the environment? I'm not calling the Democrats saints, either, but let's not disingenuously pretend that Bush or his friends give a rat's ass about the planet, eh?
The Free desktop that Just Works
I know what you mean. All those Nobelists in the Union of Concerned Scientsts are just hacks. Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal, everyone knows that.
Sheesh.
If you'd like to criticize the substance of their report, indicating what they did wrong and why their conclusions are flawed, that'd be a worthwhile contribution to the discussion. Until then, though, all you've contributed is ad hominem.
Put another way, your response is the equivalent of suggesting that General Relativity must be wrong because Einstein abused his wife.
Since the trees are being cut down faster then they grow back your unwillingness to give up your comforts will effect your children and grandchildren.
Get a free Mac Mini
Look, there are all sorts of groups that have agendas. That does not mean, a priori, that everything they say is bullshit. UCS is pretty well respected, and you just blow them off 'cause you disagree with their political perspective. That's why I posted that reference to the pundits Bush has been paying off: they too just pile on anyone who disagrees with Bush. Relax, man, and have a real political discussion, instead of just assuming liberals are such monsters. Discuss the issue.
I never ceases to amaze me how so many people frown upon protecting the world we live in, the air we breath, the water we drink, and the food we eat. "Liberal agenda" my ass. This is about our survival as a species. You would hope that the people expressing deep concern over matters of the environment would receive thanks and praise for the efforts. Nevertheless, there is no shortage of greedy, wholeheartedly selfish people out there out to ensure their own personal and short-term gain, the consequences be damned. but then, I suppose I'm just some unamerican hippie...
Join Tor today!
If you're going to bash the bad stuff, at least praise the good along with it. Slashdot posters love to tout clean nuclear power, but ignore it when it's brought up by the President they love to hate:
"To keep our economy growing, we also need reliable supplies of affordable, environmentally responsible energy. Nearly four years ago, I submitted a comprehensive energy strategy that encourages conservation, alternative sources, a modernized electricity grid, and more production here at home--including safe, clean nuclear energy."
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
anyone on the conservative or Republican side of the spectrum is a greedy, money grubbing liar
I wouldn't say anyone one the conservative side of the spectrum fits that description. Hell, I'm fairly conservative on a number of topics as are quite a few of my friends. But the handful of people running the Republican party right now are in fact greedy, money grubbing liars.
And one of their hallmarks is using arguments which are known logical fallacies. Since you seem to be doing the same thing, I'll address them.
1. In the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;
There is nothing in the article relating to 15 years. I would probably classify this as "Unrepresentative Sample". You clearly chose 15 as it is the largest number for which your statement is true. Change that number to 5 years, or 20 years, and the opposite is true.
2. The "Union of Concerned Scientists" has been a liberal activist organization blah blah
This is simply an ad hominem attack. Good for emotional appeal, but logicially it's meaningless.
3. Most scientists in FWS reported no such pressure;
Does this even try to advocate anything?
I mean, economic development is always bad, and any edict on "endangered species", no matter how shaky, is always good, right?
And a perfect example of a straw man argument. No body is actually claiming that economic development is always bad. Well, except for the neo-cons when they want to beat up a straw man so they can feel superior.
All of that, and no where in your post is there anything which could actually be considered a reasonable argument that either a) political pressure is not being applied or b) it's OK that political pressure is being applied. Just the usual cloud of fallacies trying to obscure the actual issue at hand.
1400 people were sent surveys. 30% responded which means about 420 people responded. These people responded in spite of "...memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside surveys."
However, 69% [~300 of the 420 people who responded] said they had never been given such a directive[to alter results]. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.
So of the 1400 people sent surveys, 420 responded IN SPITE OF ORDERS NOT TO DO SO and of those 420, only 42 said they had been forced to alter results.
That's not to say that science and politics shouldn't be mixed this way. It's bad. But it happens on BOTH SIDES of the political line.
Look at one of the last quotes:
"Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.
"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency.""
That's 12 years under Republican Administrations and 8 years under a Democratic one.
You guys want to stop this? Good. But first realize this is not just a Bush/Republican problem... This is a SYSTEM WIDE problem.
Okay, so "more than half" of 30% makes it a little over 15%. So thats around 210+ scientists. Technically, the summary is right in saying "hundreds", but it sounds a whole lot more sensational than it really is.
And how is 210+ out of 420 scientists not "sensational"?
Science is scewed to serve the agenda of the politic, and as such has become perverted by money and politics. This problem has precious little to do with political leanings. I just wish that Americans would stop blaming the left and right politics. It has nothing to do with science and precious little to do with right and wrong. Afterall a bird cannot fly with only one wing!
Let the Bush bashing begin! ...even though in the last 15 years, the majority of most of these scientist's time has been spend under a Democratic president;
Because as we all know, every single issue can and should be immediately broken down into a Republican/Democrat, Conservative/Liberal dichotomy. Once you have the dichotomy you can then immediately discern what everyone's views on the issue must be based solely on which side of the Republican/Conservative dichotomy they fall on any other issue.
There's a saying:
"The more issues a person tries to arbitrarily shoehorn down into a Liberal/Conservative dichotomy, the more certain you can be that the person is an American."
Once you're done with the pointless partisan bickering that, frankly, has no real bearing on the issue at hand, feel free to actually get back to discussing the topic.
Jedidiah.
Craft Beer Programming T-shirts
In other news, the March of Freedom was going to happen anyway.
Bush just knows how to get it done propping up our military industrial complex. Thank God for that! (No, really! Thank the invisible man in the sky.)
"I don't think Osama bin Laden sent those planes to attack us because he hated our freedom. I think he did it because of our support for Israel, our ties with the Saudi family and our military bases in Saudi Arabia. You know why I think that? Because that's what he fucking said! Are we a nation of 6-year-olds?" - David Cross
No, I mean political pressure.
Historically, those have been one in the same.
Hey, the article is not talking about your lifestyle choices, it's talking about scientists' ability to publish the facts as they see them without getting pressured to lie!
The sad or annoying thing is that at least a few of them do know better. Dick Cheney, for example. However, the only concern of those few is with cashing the checks before the reality bounce happens. That's not a question of a statute of limitations, but rather the post facto law thing. Sure, in the future people will regard them as a bunch of criminals--but too late.
Freedom = (Meaningful - Coerced) Choice != (Speech | Beer^2), and sad sock puppets' bad mods avail them naught.
I'm not going to praise what I think is a bad idea. I love the concept of nuclear power from an air-quality standpoint, but the incredibly dangerous and voluminous waste it produces is more than I can ignore. Not only are the fuel rods dangerous, but all the parts involved in the heating of the water, etc, become dangerously irradiated and must be stored in similar conditions to the fuel rods. While I'm sure it's theoretically possible to store this stuff safely, knowing the inherent laziness and stupidities of large corporations and governments, I have a hard time believing that it will actually be done right, and that's more risk than I'm willing to take.
The Free desktop that Just Works
Seriously, aren't these environmental issues takes much too seriously. I mean, does it really hurt so badly if a rare bird species dies out because of a new bridge getting built. Likewise, does a redwood tree become worth more just 'cause it's 500 years old?
Nature is always in constant flux, and all that we humans do is at most accelerating the process a bit (if even that much... probably we are rather altering it slightly). It's not like there's a purpose is keeping a rare species in existance. Right? In particular, species die out and come into existance every day anyway -- I don't see the point in keeping one alive just because it would have lived if humans weren't there. It makes it sound as if humans were somehow "outside" the rest of nature, and that it would somehow serve a purpose to leave nature alone. That purpose I cannot see.
You are totally correct in saying that science cannot answer many technological and political questions. Endangered species, stem cell research, abortion, cloning: these are ethical questions. Science can only contribute fact.
However, there is one thing which science is fantastic at. All worthy science must be reproducible and disputable. This is what makes it science. Because of this, it doesn't matter what the biases of the scientists are. This is the breakthrough that made positivist science paramount.
Don't trust scientists, but do trust the scientific process, because it doesn't trust anyone.
I think people got in a stir over this because it is not the first case of this administration pushing facts around, and pushing scientists around. They seem to like science's authoritative voice, but not the multiple voices it turns out to actually be.
And when a scientist has the choice between getting his career ruined because of bad results / wrong hypothesis or lie in order to get a second chance, some do chose the second option.
But on the plus side, 200 researchers came forward rather than buckle. That's actually amazing.
Wow, what a partisan, science-hating post to make right out of the box! This doesn't address the issue of scientists expected to change their conclusions on the basis of politics, or the substance of the claims. Like scientists or not, but you can't in good faith ignore them just because you don't like their politics.
Science is the most powerful way of developing new and accurate information about the world we live in. By all means, make policy on the basis of more than science, but don't subvert science to advance wishful thinking. Everyone loses that way.
Professor of Astronomy, Author of Spider Star & Star Dragon (Tor)
he's not turning it into a republican/democrat debate. the organization making the scientific claims has a political bias, and therefore politics have gotten involved.
just like the bush administration alledgedly has the motivation to alter the data to further their goals. UCS ALSO has the SAME EXACT motivation to modify the report linked to in the article to further their goals. Science and polotics CANNOT be allowed to mix
Does this mean that the bush adminstration didn't do these things they were accused of? No. It simply means that the report cannot be trusted on its own. It may be true, it may be false.
face it, we're inclined to blame our adversaries for any problems we face weather it is republican or democrat. the amount of political mudslinging in the comments on this post is astounding. has anyone thought that this may have been the original intent of the article?
UCS and Bush both have their political agendas -- I wouldn't trust either on a report on the enviornment.
-- If you try to fail and succeed, which have you done? - Uli's moose
If the public doesn't believe the system can ever work properly, it's all that much easier to manipulate it. This seems to be a recurring theme with the current administration. If you screw up, screw up big and everyone will let it slide:
1) Hey, this strategic intelligence stuff is difficult, how could we know there weren't WMDs there?
2) Wars are complicated. Taking control of a nation is complicated. Of course there are bound to be a lot of really, really serious screw-ups in our planning.
3) What is "torture?" I mean, really. Aren't we really just splitting hairs here? One man's "brutal interrogation" is another man's "questioning session." Besides, this sort of thing has always happened throughout history, but in previous American wars there weren't nosy reporters snooping around all over the place.
4) Everyone knows government is inefficient. We're trying to cut the size of the government. If we cut domestic spending, we can slice out the deficit and shrink government. And we all know that the military and government are two totally different things, which is why $8 billion in missing funds in Washington demands outrage, while $8 billion missing in Iraq is just the fog of war.
5) It's impossible to estimate the cost of war in Iraq before we go in. It's impossible to estimate the cost of the war once we're in it. Therefore it is obviously impossible to estimate its cost in the future, which is why it's not in the budget package.
Desensitize the public to gross incompetence by convincing them that it is to be expected, and over time the public will come to expect it. Those who are outraged will be promptly marginalized as hopelessly romantic idiots.
Read the EFF's Fair Use FAQ
The people who know what they are saying about the environment are suggesting very rational means of protecting the environment, but for every one of the rational experts there are a hundred screaming morons making inarticulate and unhelpful demands.
Which group gets heard more?
The people who actually care about the environment should worry about getting their acts together. Until they do that they will continue to be dismissed for the nutjobs a great many of them are.
It's basic human nature. People value what's theirs. All it takes is to look at any public park and see the trash blowing through it (often dumped within feet of a trash can). Yet these same people who will toss a burger wrapper out of their car at 60mph will be just as likely to go home and obsessively groom their lawns and maintain their homes. It's the same thing on a corporate scale. "Big corporations" don't dump on and despoil land they own and intend to keep (it's worth money, they don't want to ruin it). Dumping always happens on public land somewhere. It sounds counter productive to the environmental movement, but the best way to preserve land is to privatize it. Public maintainership doesn't work. When everyone's responsible, no one's responsible ultimately. We see it every day in every aspect of our lives, yet refuse to see it in the environment.
What's your point? That it's okay to lie about the cost if you think it's worth it? From the article:
If I'm parsing the phony "on the other hand" journalism correctly,
That's not acceptable. I don't care how cozy your house is.
-- . . ramblin' . . .
"...[A]bout 49.9% of Americans aren't happy with the President and the country."
But, I note that they are not quite unhappy enough to draw blood. In a political and historical sense, that means they are happy.
This is about our survival as a species. You would hope that the people expressing deep concern over matters of the environment would receive thanks and praise for the efforts
Similar rhetoric is used to defend the patriot act and DMCA (this is about our survival as a country, survival of the economy, respectively). A noble cause is not enough, you have to put together a workable plan that doesn't end up destroying people's livelihood in the process. It's easy to say "Stop Greenhouse Gases", it's hard to figure out how exactly to do so without causing economic collapse.
D6 63 0D 70 89 81 BB 8E 7B 7C 5F 5D 54 EA AB 73
How did this get insightful?! This is crap. Yes, if we don't change something, future humans may suffer...but "freemacmini," i don't see you giving up your computers run by power from a plant that (most likely) is run off of coal or some other air-polluting source. I'm not doing it, the parent is doing it, and neither are you obviously, so cut down on the hypocrisy, "selfless savior of the future"
It's so sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat. Why can't it simply be the People vs. the Government - the way it should be.
Find coupons in Greeley
At least, the bad genocides, where people we don't dislike are getting killed by people we do dislike.
I mean, even the Republicans would probably issue at statement condemning them or something.
As long as it wasn't someone we were actively trading with. Or might want to in the future.
If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
I have heard scientists who have told said that their science supports something *it does not support*. Then when overruled, they complain that political or business interests are overriding science. But it often is not true. Don't believe them just because they say it.
For example, here in WA, we have a lot of land use issues. A common practice is for the environmental lobby to say that the "best available science" says that for a certain type of environment with a certain type of animal, a certain buffer size is required. But often they are just wrong.
There are many ways in which they are wrong. Sometimes they unscientifically compare different types of environments as though they are the same. Sometimes they don't take preexisting man-made structures into account. Sometimes -- this is no joke -- they mistake the size of the study for the recommended buffer size.
These sorts of things go on all the time. And there's no justification for taking their word for it, especially when they have their own political agenda.
Heck, you can't even get a Nobel prize in the physical sciences without being a liberal
Since the nobel is granted based on "benefit to humanity", an idea itself heavily tied to political bias and agenda-pushing, this is more true than you will ever know.
...it's really a sad day for America when we require a goddamn ACT OF CONGRESS to make our DVD players work properly. ~
Excuse me. Pointing out that a group has a radical political bias and has a long history of fact twisting is not a meaningless ad hominem attack. BTW, both groups doing the pseudo-study do indead believe that ALL economic development is bad. They also are striving for the abolishment of private property and personal freedom. All you need to do is a google on these and their affiliate organizations, and their leaders to see that this is true. A word of warning. The liturature of these so called enviro groups are crafted by lawyers who are very good at twisting facts when possible and out right lying when the fact are not twistable. If you are lucky, you might find some analysis of the standard set of techniques they use to distort reality. I wish I had a link handy to one of these articals.
Just because a group espouses enviromentalism and uses enviromental law to push their political agenda does not make them friends of the enviroment. In fact, it has been demonstrated numerous times that their activities are harming enviromental causes. The only reason I am on to them is that I am involved with Wolf recovery efforts, an enviromental cause I feel deaply about. These so called enviromentalists latest activities are deletarious to all wolf reintroduction efforts. That is becaus things have been going fairly well for the wolf, which is bad for them. When I started seeing the things they were doing, I got curious. Why would enviromentalist be doing things that are harmfull? Could they be stupid or misguided? So I did some googling. It did not take long to figure out what these people really were about. It is actually kind of scary.
(disclaimer: I'm not American, I'm just calling this as I see it. Some may be offended by this, sorry.)
America is no longer the land of the free, and the home of the brave. It's just a haven for corporate controlled special interest groups. Too bad, if people (meaning the government, and the corporations they're tied to) were less interested in making money, and more interested in helping their own country, and the planet as a whole, they really could be what they claim they are. As it stands, it's pretty much a lie. We see this all the time in things ranging from the war in iraq (which was based on a false premise to begin with), to ridiculous patent grants, to other environmentally important things like the Kyoto Accord. All the while, these people who make the key decisions are not held accountable for their actions. And when they are held accountable, which is rare, they're treated with more respect than they should be due. Got a CEO who made millions off the suffering of others? I got two words for you: General Population. Right beside the murderers, car thieves and rapists. Too bad it doesn't happen.
Frankly, I don't blame American individuals per-se. Some might say "well, you voted them in!" but if you have a good long look at the choices, there may as well not be any choices. Like people anywhere, they have their own worries on an individual level. It's not surprising that some of these scientists who are coerced by corporations with extreme power just comply. I mean, they have their own families to feed, and that has to be a primary worry of many of them. What would you do if someone threatened to take away your ability to provide for your kids? Lets face it, these people are caught in an economical machine they just can't change.
The truth is, capitolism doesn't work in favour of the base population. It's a system based on keeping the poor as poor as possible, and the rich as rich as possible, with a mid-point "hump" that's really hard to get past, even if you work your ass off. The government tends to make this whole thing far worse by letting large business entities get away with murder.
If I were American, I'd move. Anywhere has got to be better than where America is currently heading. You may wake up one day to find out your country has become the very thing you hate, assuming it's not there already.
BeauHD. Worst editor since kdawson.
To the intelligent Slashdotters:
Thank you for being able to cite evidence backing your points and for being able to debate without turning something into a flamewar.
To the rest of you:
[Group name/individual] is destroying (pick one)[our way of life/the economy/our country]! Those who disagree with me are all lying self-serving hypocrites painting a false picture of my side! Blame [the opposing side] for everything!
Just insert the appropriate phrases and presto! It's the average Slashdoter response.
For all of the shouting I see precious little debate going on. Mostly I see a lot of purely partisan bullshit flying from both sides. being a Slashdotter doesn't automatically make you smarter than everyone else. Cut the crap and take lessons from the Slashdotters who know how to debate.
Yes I know it's a rant, but I just had to get that off my chest.
Science should never be forced to change accordingly to politics. Didn't we learn anything from the past? Galileo Galilei, for example, was forced to change his mind because the backwards church demanded it. To say that these scientists today were silenced because during the last 15 years there was a democratic presient for 8 years is simply ridiculous. Are they complaining about how they were silenced back then, or are they complaining about how they're silenced now? I have read about how conservatives (who, for some reason, seem to believe in mythological creatures a lot) are trying to skew data to fit their own ideas on how reality should be. This doesn't have to do with biology alone, but also things such as abortion. There are more examples where science is slowly being forced to move to give room for personal beliefs and religion and politics. This is dangerous and dishonest and, yes, evil.
People trash other people's private property all the time. So I don't see how privatisation would help.
The other danger of privatisation is that the owner can damage their property with impunity.
There are several other reasons to dislike your recommendation, but those will do for starters.
hummmm.
Scientist being fired by the current admin over pushing this.
The admin constantly fighting against this as well as anything that would hurt is oil imports (literally).
Yeah, yeah, all the scientists are liers. Instead, we should believe in a president who has fought in 'Nam, created companies that did awesome, ran a clean baseball team, fought against drug use all hist life, stopped terrorists attacks from occuring to us, currently stopping the deficit that was created during clinton's admin, got rid of all the Nukes in Iraq, and captured Bin Ladin and stopped all the terrorists attacks in Sadi Arabia, Iraq, and Isreal, and slowed down CO2 production. Oh, also is about to save out Social Security (hummmmmm). Yep. That is the man.
What does god have to do with Christianity?
From TFA:
"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics -- that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."
The "scientist" who alters data is simply not a scientist. Period. It's like a preacher who is an atheist. It simply doesn't make sense. Science is all about the data, and facts - even if your results fly into the face of your hypothesis, you have to accept them and find another explanation for them - not alter them.
If politicians found out that scientists cannot be pressured they'd have to stop doing it. You shouldn't be able to "rent" a PhD and tell them what to say. I might as well buy my degree on the internet if I let that be done to me. But there are always spineless individuals in every field and they give the rest of us a bad name.
Good for them for going public with this - one has to ask: exactly how long has this been going on, and where else has this junk science been taking place...
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
You're kidding, right? Reduced taxes for whom, the rich? People who don't really need it?
And why all of the wasted money on the military? The world isn't impressed by the US's "mighty" arsenal. It's like the musclehead who goes around flexing his arms thinking that people will respect him because of it.
UCS is not partisan in the same way. These guys are a front for industry PR campaigns. The UCS is literally a union of concerned scientists. They are not a closed organization; if you are a concerned scientist with different views, join UCS, participate in the process and make your voice heard. If you have anything useful to add to the discussion it will likely be listened to. Scientists are not the kind of closed minded twits that you find in politics (or PR). Calling these people partisan and leftist is absurd -- the positions they take are neither especially radical nor controversial, but they've come under attack by an organized (and funded) campaign from the right that is trying to make them out to be. And people with a clue should resist that, whether or not you agree with their politics.
"When the fascists are on the march, their propaganda is always in order"
I thought exactly that when I read your post. Amazing how hypocrisy pervades virtually every discussion here.
"Bush "bashing" isn't even necessary any more"
So why do you do it?
In the last 20 years, more time was spent under a Republican administration. Why the arbitrary 15 year figure?
1) Forest Service and Fish & Game have notoriously been in the pocket of business, usually logging and mining. With Gale Norton as SecInterior, what else can anyone expect?
2) Maybe the Union of Concerned Scientests is loaded with liberals because the conservative scientests just don't give a damm....
And how exactly do you know that the lab "professor" (which is funny, back when I was in school the labs were run by the TAs, not the professors) was a liberal? And how do you get from her telling you to falsify this one result to the idea that there are too many pseudo-soft science adherents? I don't see anything about "soft-science adherents" here, just one lazy graduate student or post-grad (and if everyone else got an A, frankly, that's not a very good school).
It's amazing nobody quoted Richard Feynman yet.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for nature cannot be fooled."
http://www.dieblinkenlights.com
Hmm... Maybe I should read up a bit on the american political system. I'm always lost when the discussion turns political.
What does Democrat and Republican stand for? Both seem rather rightwing...
And why are only these two standpoints ever mentioned?
Are there only two parties? What if I'm not satisfied with those two? Am I allowed to start my own party?
If not: Why not? It's a free country, right? =/
*curious*
/.Mattsson - My native language is not English, so please don't whine over linguistic errors. (That's lame anyway...)
God has everything to do with the right wing, at least here in the US. The Christian Right controls the Republican Party (at least at this point in time). They have so much control in fact that I cannot fathom how any non-religious right-wingers are still Republicans.
Time makes more converts than reason
Well, actually, they are rather right-wing from a non-American perspective. But in America, apparently, it's the difference between night and day. It's all in our head, but whatever.
Republicans essentially stand for lowering taxes, decreasing the size/amount of government and government regulation, etc, etc. Recently they've also seemed to take a very socially conservative point of view (ie: wanting to regulate the private life), which is somewhat ironic. However, this may just be a momentary trend and go away in the future, as Republican ideals are consistently in favor of less Federal Government intervention.
Democrats essentially stand for government programs that benefit the people (though this is not always what we get in practice!), higher taxes for the rich (to support these new government programs) and Federal regulation on anything they believe needs it (which could be quite the slippery slope toward socialism).
And there are more than two parties: there's the Libertarian party, the Green party, hell, we even have the Communist and Nazi Party in the US. If you don't like those two parties, start your own! Until you get a moderate amount of votes for president, you won't recieve any funding to help you run your party, but there you have it.
Also, even if you belong to a party, you don't have to vote for them if you don't want to. You can write in "Micky Mouse" on the ballot if it really struck your fancy. It's your choice.
The big reason that these two standpoints are mentioned is because our country has, apparently, become completely incapable of respecting the intricasy of any argument, and tries to boil everything down to two base-line viewpoints. Everything gets simpliified down to sound bites and harped on and used as war cries, regardless of whether they even truly have any meaning for their particular point.
For example, we have the "anti partial birth abortion" people vs. "pro choice". They argued back and forth for weeks/months, but no one seemed to notice that the "pro choice" people weren't necessarily for murdering fully formed fetuses, per se, but only in wanting to allow the mother, if medically necessary, an "escape route", so to speak. I don't want to get into details on which side is right or wrong, but the point is, "pro choice" is a far cry from "wanting to make sure the mother's life isn't in danger by not allowing this". But instead, it was made to sound like these people wanted to go about aborting fetuses willy nilly, just for fun. It's really dishonest - and I don't blame the Republicans/Conservatives for this - it's rampant throughout America, and, in my opinion, a serious, terminal disease to the political process in America.
(Please note that I am not a political scientist, just a geek who takes politics very seriously. I'm sure Republicans would try to paint themselves in a different way and Democrats as well, but it's really difficult to determine what is fact and what is an offshoot of their respective Public Relations campaigns.)
Bush's latest budget does a pretty good job of cutting a lot of environmental spending, including funds to the EPA.
But then again, his budget cuts just about every single social program (including No Child Left in a Ditch).
However, defense and military are through the rough.
And I think it has been empirically proven that companies don't do anything voluntarily unless there is something to be made from it.
~X~
~X~
Why does everyone think that hard working people are the exception, not the rule. In fact the US has the MOST hardworking people in the world.
I can tell you right now that I'm pretty shit poor and I work a lot harder than some other employees where I work who make 3, 4, and 5 times what I make. This silly notion that hard work in America will get you everything is ridiculous.
My suggestion to you is to live your life a little while and see how tough it can really be without money in the US.
In my experience, this is so wrong. Most of the people I know are Republican. I can't think of more than one that goes to church (any church) more than three times a year.
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
as Republican ideals are consistently in favor of less Federal Government intervention.
Let us note that the entire time Republicans were harping on less federal government and getting government off the backs of the people they were consistantly an opposition party. It seems funny that once they were in charge all that changed.
Republicans when not in charge:
"Federal Government bad. Leave such things to the states."
Republicans when in charge:
"Federal Government good. States cannot make their own laws regarding marriage, etc."
And here we go, proof of the point. Somebody who just refuses to give the slightest bit of credit to the opposing party.
Personally, I hate President Bush just as much as anybody. I think the Republican party has lost its grip on reality and is wandering off in the direction of many former totalitarian regimes with fearmongering, scapegoating, restricting of rights, and use of force (admittedly it still has a long way to go before it becomes Sovient Russia. I can still say these things without fear of reprisal.)
However, my taxes did go down because of our president. That may be misguided due to deficits, or it may be a good way to boost the economy and generate more revenue (I am not an economist).
I like having a strong military, because we don't have to worry about being invaded, which is a problem that has plagued nations for all of history. Between our location and our military, we basically don't have to worry about wars for the forseeable future. That security is very nice, and most of us take it for granted. The "respect" you speak of is there. People don't insult the musclehead to his face, no matter what they think of him. As long as you aren't lacking in intelligence or social grace, there's nothing wrong with being strong. Whether we should be involved in foreign conflicts is a different issue. I haven't seen intelligent debates on whether we will ultimately be doing "good" in the middle east, just a lot of name-calling like yours. I haven't seem detailed analysis of how much of a threat these regimes pose to the United States and our interests. I don't think we want to get involved in every conflict in the world, or that we have any business telling other countries how their government should work.
I'm also a mechanical engineer, and the defence industry provides a lot of jobs. I'm not in it right now, but I might be at some point. Interestingly, the Bush Wars have hurt the engineering part of the defence industry, since the budget is paying for the wars and not for R&D. However, for the economy to be healthy there has to be a lot of money changing hands. Private parties (like the Republicans) want to horde money and get rich. The government is in a good position to spend money to keep the country rolling.
I gave up on politics because I try to keep an open mind. I can't agree with any of the major parties, because in order to get votes they oversimplify things to prove that they are right. That makes them wrong, and I move along.
Republican - a boot grinding a human face into the dirt, forever.
Democrat - put a pillow between the boot and the face.
Actually -
Democrat - Pick your pocket so they can buy the pillow before putting the boot in your face.
Find coupons in Greeley
Republican's goal of reduced taxes is great ...
Huh? I see no signs that the Republicans are trying to lower taxes. Take a look at the deficit.
It appears to me the Republicans are trying to increase power by whatever means possible, including telling people their taxes will be reduced, while at the same time spending money like drunken sailors on ends that, you guessed it, will increase power. The Republicans may have some redeeming quality, but reducing taxes is not it. End the brainwashing now, please. Or perhaps you are confusing them with the Libertarians?
Based on their own survey results most respondants feel the opposite of what is being portrayed in this story. Most of them are happy with the FWS and don't feel pressured.
The fact that the majority had NOT been pressured doesn't mean that it's OK. 30% of those who answered feel pressured.
Even 5% shouldn't be acceptable.
I attended two state GOP conventions and one national GOP convention during the mid-late 1980s. I saw the takeover in action. It is real.
I am no longer directly affiliated with the Republican party, but I still have a decent grapevine through old friends and even older family. The incidental party affiliation of "most of the people [you] know" is entirely irrelevant to the matter of who formulates the planks in the party platform in exchange for delivering a highly dependable demographic bloc on election day. What James Dobson, Pat Robertson, Gary Bauer, and the Wildmons say today will be blended with prettified supply-side economics and become the official GOP talking points six months from now.
The older Republicans were more moderate and accepted this as an expedient trade-off; the establishment only pushed the issues just enough to guarantee electoral victory. The reason George W. Bush arouses such instinctive loathing from "the Left" and such devotion from "the Right" is that he is simply the first of what will be many more generations who believe their own hype. Their party maturation began in the middle of the bargaining process between the plutocrats and theocrats, and therefore they do not maintain an acute awareness of the situation as a calculated political convenience. They have imbued their economic policies have the righteous conviction of morality, and thus they find it natural to make national policy serve their moral ends. We have been witnessing the modern birth of a religious tradition which combines spirituality with economics.
He who has an ear, let him hear.
Hollywood, Television, has become the dream machine. We need to take that back; each of us is a Dream Machine
Analogy alert: I will gladly take counsel from a fire marshall about how to make my home safe, but a fire marshall is the last person I would want to actually make policy in my home because I want to live my day-to-day life there.
Environmental scientists, like almost all specialists, see things very narrowly, and many place disproportionate importance on the unnatural preservation of some ideal, imagined, "human-free" ecosystem. People need to work; people need to eat. Sometimes commerce should trump the conclusions of "science."
taken! (by Davidleeroth) Thanks Bingo Foo!
You don't think calling a democratically elected government "fascist" is in itself propaganda?
That's the problem in a nutshell. You blast one side fo rbehavior, then do exactly the same thing in response, and the worst part is you can't see it.
No matter your feelings about our current government, calling them fascist is just hyperbolic.
Of course, now we'll see the other part of the problem, the complete inability to acknowledge a lucid point, even though you disagree. Instead, I expect several ad-hominems, followed by equivocation, and attempts to justify the "fascist" comment.
Prove ME wrong.
Have you considered the possibility that scientists are ignoring science to favor undue burdening of businesses?
Are you asserting that the scientists are skewing the data and that the politicians are seeing through that and correcting the scientists? Don't mix up the science, observations, data, analysis, extrapolation etc. with politics where you take the data and set policy.
If the politicians are saying no to the recomendations of the scientists then that is fine. But that is not what the article is saying. To extend your analogy: I don't want to spend $$ on an expensive fire escape that my wife wants based on the recomendation of a fire marshall so I (being on the town board) tell the fire marshall to change his recomendation or else. That is not an honest or wise approach to making decisions that affect lives or (in the case of environmental science) the future quality of life.
90% of the wealth is in 2% of the pockets. Bummer to be in the majority.
A poor analogy.
The scientists are not the ones making policy. In a correct analogy, someone is bribing/threatening the fire marshall to lie to you about his findings.
Good luck when your house burns down.
Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
Who the hell modded you insightful??
Politics should not trump the science. If people need to eat, and the findings get in the way of that, then OK, we should feed people. But you don't lie about the science to fit the situation. If there is a problem with the law that it makes things unnaturally hard, that is one thing, you don't cover up the truth of the matter to do it though.
This is the real "junk-science".
-- Having a Creationist Museum is like having an Atheist place of worship
Given the past exploits of the UoCS, it is quite possible that the pool of respondants was tweaked by throwing out enough negative responses to create the desired end result.
I can't take your claim at face value, since opponents of the UoCS have a history of taking a position and then "proving" the validity of their position with data that was either very selective or just plain fabricated.
Since you've produced no evidence whatsoever to back your claim, I must conservatively assume the latter is the case here.
Edith Keeler Must Die
People need to work; people need to eat. Sometimes commerce should trump the conclusions of "science."
You won't see me hugging any trees or out on a Greenpeace ship saving the pygmy shrimp, but I simply can't agree with your statement or let it stand without comment. It's completely bogus. That's the exact same statement every industry uses to continue destroying [insert natural resource of your choice here] in a non-sustainable way. "I need to make a living," they say, "I have a perfect right to fish out every fish in the sea until there aren't any left! Damn you fruity environmentalists!" Or "My family needs to eat, so I have a perfect right to clear-cut every forest in the world! Damn you hippie freaks and your environmental laws!" This is no exaggeration, I've seen people say things just like this.
The problem is that people needing to work and eat today always seems to take precedence over people needing to work and eat tomorrow. I don't care if your family depends on logging to make a living, if that logging is being done in a non-sustainable manner that is damaging the ecosystem for future generations. If people working and eating today comes at the price of no work and starvation for the next generation, you're doing something wrong.
If a scientist can show evidence that some chemical presents a certain level of danger to our ecosystem, or a process is non-sustainable, it should ALWAYS trump commerce, because what the hell is commerce going to do when they just go ahead and destroy the resource they are using to make money? We also have to live our day-to-day lives on this planet, not just work here.We have to eat the food that grows in the soil, and drink the water that comes from the available fresh water sources. Money doesn't matter if your drinking water gives your wife and kids cancer. There is no such thing as "disproportionate importance" when it comes to the environment. Either something is sustainable or it isn't. Either something pollutes in a way that the environment can't filter out, or it doesn't.
If a scientist was ignoring science just to destroy business, you could use the available evidence to discredit them, prove them wrong. But somehow I just don't see that happening much. Sure, there are some eno-nuts out there who don't give a shit about science, but greed ensures that the business end will almost always be the one in the wrong, not the scientists. The proof is in the pudding. The world already contains many cesspools of pollution of unbelievable proportions, making vast sections of land basically uninhabitable for the next thousand years.
Most of us really don't care what you do with the environment, as long as it is done in a way that's sustainable and doesn't irreversibly damage people or natural resources like drinking water. "People needing to work and eat" will never be an acceptable reason to destroy the life support system of the only known habitable planet in the universe. It's actually the strongest argument to favor the conclusions of science. No quotes.