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."
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Scientists were saying the same thing just under a year ago...
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
Slightly related to the post, but here's my 2 cents. Science is expensive. Very expensive. 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. Of course, the 'lie' isn't always intentional, even conscious; some tend to alter to reality in order to see what they want to see. You can't be always right, but when you're wrong, funding (private or public) gets a lot tougher to get. It can be fatal to a scientific career... when you put your life behind an idea, you tend to want to be right. No matter what. The funding system is just bad; failure is punished too harshly.
Now back on topic, political ingerence in science is even worse. Especially when motivated by a $$ agenda. Your career versus a should-be-protected plant? Not everyone has the courage to say 'no'... I admire this group of scientist, they had the courage to stand up. Sadly, some don't, and we'll never know it.
Eureka Science News - automatically updated
In Australia, some call it bush bashing. Others call it four wheel driving!
So, uh... This contradicts their findings how again?
Who is behind "Activist Cash"?
Don't get me wrong, it does look like the UCS is partisan. But it's not like the rebuttal is coming from a totally neutral voice, either.
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.
There were under 800 cattle from mad cow affected countries imported into Canada before the importations were stopped. And the US imported over 1600 cattle from affected countries.
Yet Canada has found 3, before they entered the human or animal food chains, and the US found one after it was partly processed. Tell us who is doing a better job of detecting mad cow in North America?
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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".
In the Soviet Union, when a biologist's findings did not match the ideals of Histoical Materialism, Lysenko would have the offending scientist sent to the gulag. Or worse...
How much longer before we find out the "Union of Concerned Scientists" is actually an Al-Qaida front organization?
[o]_O
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
"In the last decade and a half, i.e., a pretty good chunk of time, more time was spent under a Democratic administration...i.e., other arguments aside, if there are any "problems", they're not only due to Bush."
Are you a professional idiot?
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"
See here.
Dawn of the Dead
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.
It's a vast left-wing conspiracy. Decent people know that God put the environment here and God will fix any pollution problems, assuming the rapture doesn't happen first!
"Only in their dreams can men truly be free 'twas always thus, and always thus will be."
--Tom Schulman
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!
In the news today, scientists working on politically sensitive issues are pressured by politicans.
Slashdot readers are shocked and amazed.
"I blame the Bush administration" says one.
"Who would of thought there would be a connection between the Federal government and Federally mandated enviromental issues?" Crys another.
"Wait, it doesn't say if enviromental groups were pressuring the Scientists." Commented one before he was quicken beaten down.
Democrats or Republicans. They are both taking us to the same place and they are not afraid of us anymore.
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
Agree with your last point.
And you're right the poster was planning ahead, but there was no need to make it Republican/Democrat. Both comments you linked talked about "Bush" and the "Bush administration"; in my opinion, dividing it into parties is useless (since party definitions are so vague and candidates vary widely.)
He was defending the Republican party, when really he needed to defend Bush to be effective in the main thread. Luckily I think we've avoided a useless party-war thread here...
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!
This news in: Slashdot Editors Report being told by the cultocracy to where aim the slashdot effect.
Slashdot, the Weapon of Mass Download.
Someone had to do it.
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
Chocolate rations are up! There is no environmental problem! The defecit is not a problem! Except social security, that's fucked! But tax breaks for the rich are the best idea since pre-emptive wars! We have always been at war with Oceania^WIraqanistanKorea!
FreeBSD for the impatient.
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!
My 1st thoughts about the recurring contraversy over airlines neglecting the warnings just happens to be that the executives were placed in a position to decide wether they should lose millions of dollars due to delays and any anti-flying sentiment something like this (or multiple exits and parachutes) could create as a negative image of the safety of their business model ...or ignore the warnings?
Remind me again how our best interests are at heart whenever money is involved? Liberals aren't bad ppl, they tend to be a bit radical at times just because they're against war and exploitation, genocide, etc. It's usually not economically practical to entertain liberal idealists, but it doesn't mean they have nothing to say.
I forget what 8 was for.
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.
Shrub keeps his head up his...in the sand. That's not exactly a news flash. This is a president who has no use for scientific facts or evidence. He decides what he wants to believe then expects someone to show the world why he's right. If someone should have the audacity not to toe the line, they get axed. Is it any wonder that they got such a poor response rate? The point, as I see it, is not that so few responded, but that so few dared to respond. Liberal or Conservative is beside the point. This kind of willful ignorance by a president is bad for America.
What does this button do...
There ARE egregious examples of corporations overrunning the natural habitat of endangered wildlife to squeeze a quick buck out of the land. This is NOT one of those stories.
But it IS a story of the Fish and Wildlife Service cooking science in favor of non-objective interests. That is damning, regardless of whether those interests are business or personal.
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.
Hey, those guys and girl are public sector employees (Dept. of Fish and Game, I think it was called, though now it is apparently Fish and Wildlife Service). Think of the last time you visited your loval DMV office -- maybe most of them have THAT particular type of personalty, you know what I am talking about. In any case, not too many are going to bite the hand which gives them nice govt. job (with GREAT benefits) when there is some "pressure" to look another way. On the other hand, they feel quite free to bitch in an (anonymous?) survey, no, it is almost impossible to fire them!
;-)
I guess the term "scientist" lost it luster when it stopped being applied to indepedently wealthy gentlemen with curiosity about how the World works (or ones so smart that wealthy private persons just feel like funding their work) and started being applied to everyone with some education and certain level in the society. I wish we would go back to 18th century in the way we do science. Otherwise it is all fake, serving this or that special groop (whoever pays).
And yes, technically my job title is "Scientist", working for one of the big defence contractors. No, I do not do "science" in the original sense of this word. But looking back at the University life -- it was prostitution as well...
Paul B.
My first +5 post, and I forgot to login. --;;
They way you Yanks are going you won't need any WOMD to fuck you over - you're doing a fine job all by yourself.
...
Great choice of president, by the way. And secretary of state. And secretary of 'defence'. And
If kepler modified his measurements to fit into the then current view of things, astronomy would have been set back 100 years.
;-) ).
Do not you think that there were plenty of astroLOGISTS at the time who might have noticed that things do not exactly add up up there, but just were not interested in following THAT route? Kepler might as well decide to be one of them (and forever forgotten), in which case another bright guy with access to the same technology (best at that time) would publish the same observations.
The problem is that now almost all science is funded from "public funds", so there is really no incentive to go against what the public believes (and public ius represented by the bureocrats in Washington, you know...
Paul B.
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
I love the numbers of this survey.
1400 polled 400 responded.
Of those 400 46% said that they were being pressured so 184.
The story really is 13.14% of scientists polled agreed with our leading questions. And look at some of the actual questions and responses
24. In my experience, scientific documents generally reflect technically rigorous evaluations of impacts to listed species and associated habitats.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.5% 54.3% 13.8% 18.1% 4.3% 25.
USFWS strives to substantially incorporate independent peer review in formulating and validating scientific findings.
strongly agree agree don't know disagree strongly disagree
7.7% 52.2% 16.4% 18.8% 3.6%
26. I have been directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information from a USFWS scientific document.
frequently occasionally seldom never not applicable overall
2.2% 8.9% 9.2% 68.8% 10.4%
Overall the polls show a good amount of the usual worker problems (We need more money, we don't trust upper management, ect...), but the part about economic and political pressure doesn't specify about who is applying the pressure.
They could just as easilly be getting pressure from groups like PETA to increase the number of species declared endangered.
Unfortunately the entire LA Times is an opinion piece these days. They are like the boy who cried wolf; Even if it's true, if it's in the times, I can't take it seriously. They tweak polls until they come out right and did their best to throw the gubenatorial election. I like my media political operative free!
Sometimes at night I imagine the darkness is filled with horrible things with too many teeth, like Julia Roberts.
"Slashdot, the Weapon of Mass Download. :-)"
;-)
Which is why I do my part by never RTFA. Mostly cuz the articles are usually basically what the summary says, e.g. "windows teh cool, SCO rulez, linux teh bad!"...
The comments are what I come for
Tom
Someday, I'll have a real sig.
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.
PBRs are the type I'm most familiar with, but there are other designs (e.g. CANDU) that are similarly less dangerous, more stable, and less waste-creating than your standard ol' fashioned water-mediated fuel rod reactor.
Yes, but that's true of *any* kind of power plant. By that logic, we shouldn't have power plants at all."Destroy science and religion. Science would re-emerge exactly the same; but not religion." - Penn Jillette, paraphrased
How come stories about how Bush's administration is doing something bad always get some Bush apologist quickly posting "let the Bush bashing begin", but stories that criticize enemies of Bush don't get the same defensive kneejerk? Because Bush apologists have no defense, except to portray critics as being mean, or having an agenda.
"The facts are clearly biased against President Bush"
- (paraphrase) John Stewart, The Daily Show
--
make install -not war
Of course he's planning ahead. Republican "yesism" is notoriously well organized. Bush "bashing" isn't even necessary any more; Republicans get mileage out of crying about it even when it doesn't materialize. When the fascists are on the march, their propaganda is always in order.
--
make install -not war
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' . . .
I, for one, welcome our new censored, creationist supporting theocratic "scientists"
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
Middle manager (nervously): Ah, very well, but you might want to take out the part about the President and Halliburton. I don't think that's been proven yet.
Lefty scientist: Oh ho! See? See? Censorship! McCarthy! Halliburton! Enron! Chimpy! Bushitler! WMDs! Arsenic! Kyoto!
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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"
Hunger for Dictatorship
... advocating nuclear holocaust and mass bloodshed for more than a year now." One of the biggest right-wing talk-radio hosts regularly calls for the mass destruction of Arab cities. Letters that come to this magazine from the pro-war Right leave no doubt that their writers would welcome the jailing of dissidents. And of course it's not just us. When USA Today founder Al Neuharth wrote a column suggesting that American troops be brought home sooner rather than later, he was blown away by letters comparing him to Tokyo Rose and demanding that he be tried as a traitor. That mood, Rockwell notes, dwarfs anything that existed during the Cold War. "It celebrates the shedding of blood, and exhibits a maniacal love of the state. The new ideology of the red-state bourgeoisie se
War to export democracy may wreck our own.
by Scott McConnell
Students of history inevitably think in terms of periods: the New Deal, McCarthyism, "the Sixties" (1964-1973), the NEP, the purge trials--all have their dates. Weimar, whose cultural excesses made effective propaganda for the Nazis, now seems like the antechamber to Nazism, though surely no Weimar figures perceived their time that way as they were living it. We may pretend to know what lies ahead, feigning certainty to score polemical points, but we never do.
Nonetheless, there are foreshadowings well worth noting. The last weeks of 2004 saw several explicit warnings from the antiwar Right about the coming of an American fascism. Paul Craig Roberts in these pages wrote of the "brownshirting" of American conservatism--a word that might not have surprised had it come from Michael Moore or Michael Lerner. But from a Hoover Institution senior fellow, former assistant secretary of the Treasury in the Reagan administration, and one-time Wall Street Journal editor, it was striking.
Several weeks later, Justin Raimondo, editor of the popular Antiwar.com website, wrote a column headlined, "Today's Conservatives are Fascists." Pointing to the justification of torture by conservative legal theorists, widespread support for a militaristic foreign policy, and a retrospective backing of Japanese internment during World War II, Raimondo raised the prospect of "fascism with a democratic face." His fellow libertarian, Mises Institute president Lew Rockwell, wrote a year-end piece called "The Reality of Red State Fascism," which claimed that "the most significant socio-political shift in our time has gone almost completely unremarked, and even unnoticed. It is the dramatic shift of the red-state bourgeoisie from leave-us-alone libertarianism, manifested in the Congressional elections of 1994, to almost totalitarian statist nationalism. Whereas the conservative middle class once cheered the circumscribing of the federal government, it now celebrates power and adores the central state, particularly its military wing."
I would argue that Rockwell--who makes the most systematic argument of the three--overstates the libertarian component of the 1994 Republican victory, which could just as readily be credited to heartland rejection of the '60s cultural liberalism that came into office with the Clintons. And it is difficult to imagine any scenario, after 9/11, that would not lead to some expansion of federal power. The United States was suddenly at war, mobilizing to strike at a Taliban government on the other side of the world. The emergence of terrorism as the central security issue had to lead, at the very least, to increased domestic surveillance--of Muslim immigrants especially. War is the health of the state, as the libertarians helpfully remind us, but it doesn't mean that war leads to fascism.
But Rockwell (and Roberts and Raimondo) is correct in drawing attention to a mood among some conservatives that is at least latently fascist. Rockwell describes a populist Right website that originally rallied for the impeachment of Bill Clinton as "hate-filled
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 know your post was meant as a joke, and it is kind of funny, but I feel the need to respond to it. It is sad that it's always Republican vs. Democrat because both sides fail to see the benefits that the other brings to the table. Republican's goal of reduced taxes is great, just like Democrat's goal of environmental protection. Someone I read/listened to a few days back said the problem with politicians is that they get elected by saying yes to everything. However, in order to serve the people properly, they have to say no.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. --Winston Churchill
This is a case where RTFA is almost worse than nothing. Not only is the article biased, but the survey and those who made it is biased - and their reporting of the results is beyond biased.
e su lts.pdf
Here's a link to the survey questions and results:
http://ucsusa.org/documents/FWS_questions_and_r
Reading the actual results of the survey tells a far different story than that reported by those conducting the survey - or the LA times who seem to have just regurgitated the PEER/UCS press release without doing any kind of actual reporting.
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.
Of course also keep in mind that the FWS told it's employees not to respond to this survey (most likely because they knew UCS/PEER were just looking to create another hit piece since that's what PEER does full-time.) So those who did respond are already those who aren't good at following directions and are probably upset with their jobs for one reason or another.
That this even counts as news is either a testament to how liberally biased the LA times is or just how poor "news" reporting in this country has become.
--- Juggle juggle@hitesman.com
Says who? I don't believe you. This country is more heavily forested now than it has been in the past hundred years. Abandoned agricultural land is returning to forest everywhere.
-ccm
Too much Law; not enough Order.
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.
Actually, having worked for the forest service and watched the shenannigans involved in some of the "environmental" impact reports, I have to say that I tend to believe the article, and I'm Republican. A report will come in saying something like "the cut as designed will have the following adverse effects ...," typically things like muddying the water and silting up spawning beds in really nice trout streams, "to avoid this the clearance along these streams should be be increased to say 90 horizontal feet."
... well ignore that. Anyway, it wasn't based on ANY environmental concern.
The TMO had anticipated a 10 foot or 20 slope foot exclusion along the streams, and maybe a generous kickback from the multinational that wants to cut the timber and sell the best stuff to the Japanese - who at least appreciate nice wood. The original recommendation involved maybe 50 acres of timber out of 5,000. The TMO cries real tears in the SO's office and words are heard about "tree huggers" and "owl lovers" "jobs lost" and similar nonsense. The best timber is in those corridors!!
The SO may also be, almost unavoidably HAS to be, acquaintented with the multinational reps as well. Surprisingly the directive comes down, "change the corridor to 35 feet."
The backside of the story is that since many "specialists" know how these things work, they work very hard to identify "issues" that will protect their recommendations. Consequently, the stream is good but not critical trout habitat and some accountant (not a field scientist but a real, honest to god accountant who has never ventured into the woods alone in his life) has already determined how much stream the forest can "afford" to protect. His determination was made on the basis of a dollars and cents estimate he pulled from
The biologist, knowing the dweeb who REALLY made the critical stream determination, has "fudged" the data, and another hot topic was inserted the hypothesis that creek corridor is nesting territory for spotted owls - who never harmed the biologist - but at least they'll protect his fish. When his crew is out "hoot owling" he'll be out there with a speaker system giving them something to listen and report. Most are pretty young, naieve, and honest, so he can't let them in on the secret.
The SO meanwhile knows perfectly well what's up. He recons that the entire issue is childish and that both the TMO and biologist would have been screaming just as loud regardless. He also knows the area is not pristine and that it was denuded 80 years ago, so there isn't any owl habitat really. But he does like fly fishing and plans to do some on that creek next spring now that biologist has pointed it out. So he pulls and other number out of the air, one he hopes will keep his multinational pals and the local loggers more or less happy, salt the beer of that conniving TMO, and piss on that biologist that lied about everything, all at the same time. Just maybe it'll protect the stream enough, too. Besides, he's retiring in 5 years anyway.
Back in 1981, I worked at CDC. At that time, a branch became aware of a new disease that was spreading. When they approached the White house for several millions to stop the spread, they were told no. The CDC was so sure that this would be a nightmare, that they sent in some of the top guns to convince Reagan to fund it (one was a mormon bishop whose lab had won numerous awards for its' work). Of course, it was just in the gay community, and Reagan talked to his priest and came back and still said no. Obviously, this was AIDS. When my boss was asked to take on the AIDS research, he turned it down and it went to Gallo.
What I found interesting was that much of this never made the history books. We were told to just forget it. From much higher.
Of course, we have another disaster brewing with "Mad Cow"/Scrappies/CWD/KJD. It is thought that these are the same prion in different animals. But this admin is ignoring due to the possibility of hurting cattle export for the large agri companies (esp in Texas).
Many Leaders today, have hidden agendas. You need to be sure that it is in our best interest.
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. ~
They where either gullible or partaking in spreading the lie. With alot of help of the US corporate media as well.
Those that where part of the actual arms inspection in Iraq noted that Iraq did not have any WMD capability, or it was very unlikely. The head of UN arms inspection more or less said so in his report to the Security Council.
The WDM lie, like the lie that Saddam was behind 9/11, was just pretexts to invade and occupy a country in order to control it's oil resources.
(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.
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.
Where I live, there are generally three kinds of government sponsored science. I suspect it is the same in the US.
The first is done by the fixed grants to the universities, going to teachers/researchers with tenure, who can research any subject they want. There is so little of this left that it is probably insignificant.
The second is more or less generic grants everybody can seek. Probably similar to the NSF. We can not choose what we want to research, we send in proposals within the scope of the grant, and some get funded, presumably based on scientific merit. But we can publish any results, subject only to the traditional peer-review by journals. This is where the largest share of research today happens.
The third is the research insititutions who are directly part of the various branches of government. Research there are directly related to specific tasks required by the department. Researchers are not asked to lie, but results that does not support the policy of the government are not published, and the summary and consclusion of published reports are written "politically", and sometimes contradict the scientific meat of the reports. But journalists doesn't speak science, so the contradiction is seldom discovered.
Privately funded research are mostly similar to category three.
Very strange that when most non-US citizens say "hmmm, reasonable", most US-citizens shout "Liberal liberal"...
..." It would really be a nice thing to have a few more political parties in the US - official ones, say ones that get invited to debates...
As if, as if this label excuses anybody to use his/her (godgiven?) brains and run back to daddy Bush or mummy Kerry.
While it is true that in certain key area's the Democrats in the US are every bit as ugly as the Republicans - who at least do it in the open - that doesn't mean all is said or all is excused.
The land of the free doesn't seem to offer much debate culture. Everything is instantly polarized, categorized and thus excused from further intelligent debate, because "Liberal Liberal - Communist Communist - Unbeliever Unbeliever -
Anyway in this case some scientists from an organization with more democratic roots than republican roots say worriesome things.
What? They CAN'T BE TRUE because of their alleged political agenda?
The opposite however is very plausible I presume, that a government that has a history of noncooperation, changing the facts and bending the media by methods that are frowned upon by every side of any spectrum DOES NOT however interfere in the scientific process.
Right. I think I'll go with the side of the actual scientists who're reporting facts that can be verified here and there before shouting foul.
But hey, you know, if that gets to you, just shout "Liberal Liberal" a few times. I'm sure you'll feel better in no time.
note: the term liberal means conservative right-ish bastard where I come from, so it indeed is slightly insulting...
I think, therefore I am...I think.
You're right, censorship is bad. The only thing worse is complete ignorance of spelling and grammar.
That was classic intercourse!
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.
...that nowhere in the article is it explicitly stated just *who* supposedly instructed these scientists to fiddle with their data, conclusions, etc? Scientists were mentioned, the Fed was mentioned, the Game & WL folks were mentioned, and assertions of interferance were mentioned, but there is not one sentence explicitly linking them together. That brings to mind the old addage: "Consider the source".
Cloned foods give the statement "We had that last week!" a whole new meaning.
"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."
Well, you are wrong. Very, very wrong. Take a look at federal superfund sites sometime. Or where environmental cleanups are taking place. You will find a heck of a lot of them that occur on land owned by corporations. Companies are perfectly happy to "ruin" land they intend to keep. Sure, it may not be intentional but it still happens.
They just tend not to clean it up until it affects the public at large. Or they want to sell the land. Or it gives them a bad image.
"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."
Do they? I mean, I can show you private property that looks worse that a landfill. The tragedy of the commons is real. But don't pretend that people don't crap in their own backyards just because it fits in with a personal agenda or worldview.
We don't have a better environment that the old Soviet Union because of private land ownership. We have it because we are more prosperous. We have it because we actually follow laws that we pass. This may be related to private land ownership-but does not necessarily follow from it.
Which is why I do my part by never RTFA. Mostly cuz the articles are usually basically what the summary says
Wait, are you reading the same slashdot I'm reading?
I am Sartre of the Borg. Existence is futile.
That depends COMMA.
You BASTARD.
"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?
I guess I've just been missing it the whole time. A vast left-wing conspiracy? And here I have, been working on my own individual left-wing "agenda" for years, without coordinating with the hive! Damn. For all I know, I was reinventing the wheel OR being counter productive to Vast Left-Wing Conspiracy official policy! I must make contact soon. It sounds like one hell of a good time.
(Substitute Left-Wing with Right-Wing and reuse at will)
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~
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."
Don't blame me, I voted for KODOS.
Strong Mad - 2008: "I PRESIDENT!"
the group of scientists in the article (and always has been) are extremely leftist
Is that the U.S. version of "extreme left" (which to the rest of the world is actually a tad right of center) or are they actually communists who use violence to further their agenda (what a leftist extremist actually is)?
You can't take the sky from me...
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
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.
Fundamentalist Christians. Get it right. I went to a Catholic school and Catholic high school, and what do you think they taught in their classrooms? Evolution, Big Bang theory, and all of the other real sciences. The only time Creationism was even mentioned was in Religion/Theology classes, where they said that it was wrong, and that science must be listened to in order to fully understand your faith. FYI, the guy who first proposed the "hypothesis of the primeval atom" in 1927, Georges LeMaitre, was a priest. This theory later came to be known as the Big Bang theory.
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
So your 15 year time frame is a straw-man argument if there ever was one. Similar concerns have been voiced by many other science-interest groups; read pretty much any Scientific American editorial (or, even National Geographic) to learn more.
I like paying taxes. With them I buy civilization -- Oliver Wendell Holmes
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.
I can't take this story at face value, since the UoCS has a history or taking a position and then "proving" the validity the their position with data that was either very selective or just plain fabricated
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.
The only thing I would take seriously from these guys, is a treatise on how to lie with statistics
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!
Bugger all.
As I said before, I've no idea where the myth came from that volcanoes are a primary contributor to greenhouse gasses. It simply isn't true. I'm sure certain people wish it were true, and that explains why they keep repeating the myth, but it is NOT TRUE.
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
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.
There don't seem to be any counterpoints here.
I gave them previously.
The PEER site on the grandparent post, for example, makes a number of direct accusations
So what? Let's assume those direct accusations made are 100% true and accurate. That still leaves far more accusations in this study which are not described at all, let alone in detail sufficient to be independently examined. Just because you have some direct accusations, even assuming them to be valid, why would you assume the rest of the people in the study have valid complaints?
It is amazing how many people in this thread bow to the gods of science but then completely ignore science when it suits them.