WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush's administration distorts scientific findings and seeks to manipulate experts' advice to avoid information that runs counter to its political beliefs, a private organization of scientists asserted on Wednesday...
... the complaint was signed by a wide assortment of prominent scientists, including Nobel Prize winners and recipients of the National Medal of Science.
in the unemployment line.Originally posted by phatmonky
...maybe some pressure will put Bush back
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
in the unemployment line.
Originally posted by Bystander
Politics makes for lousy science. "Social relevance" also makes for lousy science.
Should it be any surprise that "socially relevant science" and politics make for really lousy science?
UCS ain't exactly the world's best source for "uninterpreted" information. The story reads more along the lines of the usual funding gripes.
Energy conservation? Hell, yes! For the simple reason that it's expensive, and improved efficiencies and use policies make sense. Fisheries management? Hell, yes! For the same obvious reasons. Ban whaling? Hell, yes! Capital punishment for poachers? Hell, yes! Wildlife preserves? Hell, yes! Jump off the Kyoto, guaranteed worldwide recession/depression leading to widespread major warfare, deepend? Na --- don't think so.
Okay, long as we tuck a great big bold-face "IF" in here, as in, "If there is in fact a global warming trend..."Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
The root cause of global warming may or may not be important. The real question is: What action should be taken?
Still, turning his back on the world's many valid concerns as
So here is the problem as I see it. Science has no recognized judges. Any administration or special interest group can pick and choose whatever scientific position they wish regardless of the popular opinions of most experts in the field. As long as some small group of scientist will make the desired argument the issue becomes political, and without making a career of science, there is no way for the average person or politician to know the best answer. From time to time we see various panels of experts assembled to answer some particular question e.g. why did the Challenger explode, but we don't see any generally accepted scientific group or organization that acts as a watch dog, tell all, nonpartisan group – the place to go for THE best answers based on the best evidence. I tend to see the UCS as such a group but obviously you don't agree.
Historically, a scientific consensus on any issue may require a century or more before everyone effectively becomes a disciple of the new paradigm. This does no good for political decisions and problems such as global warming that might require an immediate, expensive, and large scale response. On this level it seems that science utterly fails. Then to compound the problem the media does a fantastically miserable job of reporting on real science and real issues. Clearly the networks are more concerned about where the sex and the city girls landed than they are about how to manage rising ocean levels. Poor Monique.
So as you pointed out, we find a diverse range of opinions on global warming but we also find no mandate or process for good science as a function of the decision making process in Washington. Perhaps we should kick the lawyers out of Washington and replace them with scientists.
Finally, and I hope this is not true, but it is possible global economic collapse and war are preferable to a runaway greenhouse scenario. Again, the real questions are what and how much do we dare intervene in the natural processes of the biosphere. Your fears of meddling are surely justified…however I would sell any ocean front property that you may own
Originally posted by skywise
So, apparently now even the Pentagon is convinced that global warming poses a threat so grave to national security that it eclipses terrorism.
Have you all read this?
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/print/0,3858,4864237-102275,00.html
Originally posted by Loren Booda
With Bush's Kyoto stance, we won't have to travel to Mars to witness a lifeless planet.
Originally posted by FZ+
Life will probably survive, though the ecosystem will be changed, and probably not in a way we see as "better".
Originally posted by Bystander
Children have "valid" concerns about monsters under beds, in closets, in the basement, etc. --- these concerns are based on world pictures which are every bit as complete and correct as the existing climate models generating the global warming concerns. The "validity" of children's concerns is probably greater --- they are honestly afraid. The scientific community's ethics was significantly corrupted by the funding cornucopia of WWII and the Cold War --- "scare the hell out of people and watch the money roll in."
The UCS is working off a guilty conscience over the Manhattan Project, among other things. Of all groups, this should be the one to recognize the hazards involved in stampeding the public with scare tactics intended to generate funding --- J H Xist! We actually dropped the product from the Manhattan Project on people! And here they go again "Runaway warming!" Were the world's climate such an unstable system that "runaway" is possible, it woulda happened long ago. The "runaway" argument is pure male bovine waste product --- cut it 10 or 20 to 1 before applying to your front yard, or you'll burn the grass.
I promote this concept myself from time to time --- then the reality of the scientific community's qualifications to govern raises its ugly head, and I have to stick with leaving the thieves, thugs, mopes, and dopes in office to handle the dirty chores.
Ahh, come on, Ivan --- no one with an ounce of sense has ever owned OFP as an investment --- it's discretionary recreational income disposal --- you know it's going to get washed or blown away on a fairly regular timeframe. Just like building in floodplains --- the gamble is that you get your money's worth in recreational benefits, or agricultural productivity, between disasters.
Originally posted by Ivan Seeking
In a nutshell, your position is generally anti-science. Thanks.
Unfortunately, it didn't convince politicians they need to listen to scientists.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
The fact is that as WWII showed, politicians CAN'T ignore science. Therefore scientists can't ignore politics either.
Well, politicians have to depend on votes, and financial contributions. Pure science is a far distant concern for them, especially science that either doesn't resonate with their constituancy, or has long term effects that can be delayed until after the next election.Originally posted by selfAdjoint
Politicians have one way to look at and cope with the universe. It's mostly dependent on people. Scientists have another way, and it mostly ignores people. The two groups have to interact, but it is next to impossible for them to communicate, and not all the fault is on the politicians' side. Look at the hash the scientists made of trying to defend the super collider. Whenever they try to do something political they come off as arrogant and stubborn.
Downing Street tried to muzzle the Government's top scientific adviser after he warned that global warming was a more serious threat than international terrorism.
Ivan Rogers, Mr Blair's principal private secretary, told Sir David King, the Prime Minister's chief scientist, to limit his contact with the media after he made outspoken comments about President George Bush's policy on climate change.
In January, Sir David wrote a scathing article in the American journal Science attacking Washington for failing to take climate change seriously. "In my view, climate change is the most severe problem we are facing today, more serious even than the threat of terrorism," he wrote.
Support for Sir David's view came yesterday from Hans Blix, the former United Nations chief weapons inspector, who said the environment was at least as important a threat as global terrorism. He told BBC1's Breakfast with Frost: "I think we still overestimate the danger of terror. There are other things that are of equal, if not greater, magnitude, like the environmental global risks."[continued]
Originally posted by Zero
Well, politicians have to depend on votes, and financial contributions. Pure science is a far distant concern for them, especially science that either doesn't resonate with their constituancy, or has long term effects that can be delayed until after the next election.
The Bush administration has been accused of distorting scientific findings in various ways, such as censoring and suppressing research that contradicts their policies, manipulating data to fit their agendas, and appointing industry-friendly individuals to key scientific positions.
One notable example is the distortion of data on climate change, with the administration downplaying the severity of the issue and rejecting the overwhelming scientific consensus on human-caused global warming. Another example is the suppression of research on the health and environmental impacts of pesticides, with the administration favoring the interests of the agricultural industry.
The distortion of scientific findings has had a significant impact on policy-making, as it has allowed the administration to push forward policies that are not based on sound scientific evidence and may not be in the best interest of public health or the environment. This has led to controversies and challenges to policies such as the Clean Air Act and the Endangered Species Act.
There have been efforts by scientists, advocacy groups, and lawmakers to expose and address the issue of distorted scientific findings. Some scientists have spoken out and published their research independently, while advocacy groups have filed lawsuits and called for investigations. In 2009, President Obama issued a memorandum to strengthen scientific integrity in federal agencies, which aimed to prevent political interference in scientific research and decision-making.
While the Bush administration's actions have been highly criticized, the distortion of scientific findings is not unique to their administration. Previous administrations, both Democrat and Republican, have also been accused of manipulating or suppressing scientific research for political gain. However, the extent and scope of the distortion under the Bush administration sparked widespread concern and calls for reform in the scientific community.