Road Bike, Cycling Forums banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,558 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts
By JAMES GLANZ

Published: February 18, 2004

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference call with some of the scientists that was organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. The organization also issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the accusations.

Together, the two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice, and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said.

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science" could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take shape, with Howard Dean dropping out a day after Senator John Kerry narrowly defeated Senator John Edwards on the Wisconsin Democratic primary. The organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare — much longer than originally planned — and had been released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford, and who spoke in the conference call in support of the statement. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue," Mr. Train said.

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?hp
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,750 Posts
Henry Chinaski said:
A White House spokesman, Scott McClellan, said today he had not seen the text of the scientists' accusations. "But I can assure you that this is an administration that makes decisions based on the best available science," he said.
Is this "best available science" the same people that gave us the [incorrect] intelligence that Saddam had WMD?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Funny quote, but here's my question

Bocephus Jones said:
Is this "best available science" the same people that gave us the [incorrect] intelligence that Saddam had WMD?
Are you sure, there are no WMD in Iraq? Are you sure that there are no more dinosaurs?

You and "science" (of a particular bent) are the same, you look around and say, there are none here, so there aren't any anywhere.

What cracks me up more is that you actually believe you know about both. You act without humility, like you know jack about it, and then call people idiots for not agreeing with you.

You probably tell your children or people who the universe was made and how man evolved, but in reality you don't know jack about it nor were you or any of your "scientist" friends there. Yet, you know all about it and how it worked, at least enough to state it as if you did.

And miraculously, it broke all these known physical rules and laws and doesn't match the data (fossil), but damn it, it did happen millions and billions of years ago.

Have some humility. Say they haven't found any and that's not good for them. Maybe they aren't there, which could be true.

Just like, maybe evolution isn't true, but the evidence doesn't support it. But that's not what "scientist" do. They say it must be true, they just haven't seen it or prove it (with fossil data, etc.). they and you have no humility or acceptance of human pride.

Do you believe scientist ever lie or want certain outcomes or conclusions. Do you believe that maybe good research is trashed or filed, because it doesn't match what they want to be the outcome or what their friends may laugh at? Maybe to fund their research, make themselves look good or not like an idiot, etc. Do you?

In truth, we all have that potential at least admit it and try to look for the truth in humility. We don't know if there are WMD, we don't know if evolution is true, maybe so, maybe not. We'll see how the data looks when it's done. Is it done?
 

·
Banned
Joined
·
6,360 Posts
Did the same thing as gov of Texas

That's part of his history: We'll do everything on the basis of "sound science"--and then the guy who defines sound science is a president who uses "intellectual" as a pejorative term. All them eggheads don't know nothin'. It takes a man who's gone broke in the awl bidness to understand them complicated issues.
The administration is doing the same thing now with the nuclear--sorry, nookyewlar--waste dump in Nevada. A friend of mine is a geologist who's done a lot of work down there, and among the things he's pointed out is that while the dump is supposed to keep the waste safe for 20,000 years, only 10,000 years ago that whole area was at the bottom of an inland sea. The tectonic plates are still separating, and there's good evidence that when California moves out, the water will come in from the south, from the Gulf of California up through the Salton Sea past Yucca Mountain into the Great Basin. Won't happen until after the election, though, so who cares?.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,524 Posts
Those inland seas will get you everytime

A couple years ago I stood in a cave in arid southern Oregon where 12,000 year-old (or so) grass sandals had been found 30-40 years earlier. Outside the cave was a wide, low, sage-covered valley. Dry as a rusted chain that's not been lubed in 5 years.

It turns out that at the time those sandals were made that valley was an inland sea with flamingos, camels, and other odd animals wandering around.

GWB can't think beyond the next unfunded handout, much less anything more than an election cycle away.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
77 Posts
W's take on science

The DOI(Dept. of Interior) was lucky to get some of W's time. After reviewing the USGS's logo (science for a changing world) W says, "Science? NASA is science."
 

·
off the back
Joined
·
15,453 Posts
saw an article a while ago, and i can't remember where to link to it, but under the bush administration, the rules have been changed on scientific testimony so that when creating policy, outside, private sector scientist's findings are to carry more weight than those of the government agencies.

so if a scientist hired by the coal industry testifies that increasing the allowed amount of pollutants released in burning coal won't do any more harm to people or the atmosphere, and government scientists say the opposite, more weight is placed on the coal industy scientist's findings. and the policy crafted reflects that.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
"And miraculously, it broke all these known physical rules and laws and doesn't match the data (fossil), but damn it, it did happen millions and billions of years ago.

Just like, maybe evolution isn't true, but the evidence doesn't support it. But that's not what "scientist" do. They say it must be true, they just haven't seen it or prove it (with fossil data, etc.). they and you have no humility or acceptance of human pride.

Do you believe scientist ever lie or want certain outcomes or conclusions. Do you believe that maybe good research is trashed or filed, because it doesn't match what they want to be the outcome or what their friends may laugh at? Maybe to fund their research, make themselves look good or not like an idiot, etc. Do you?

In truth, we all have that potential at least admit it and try to look for the truth in humility. We don't know if there are WMD, we don't know if evolution is true, maybe so, maybe not. We'll see how the data looks when it's done. Is it done?[/QUOTE]

It will never be "done", science is a continuous self-correcting process, all facts and theories are tentative. But that doesn't mean that all facts and theories have the same weight of evidence behind them. I'm not sure if it was a mis-type on your part when you said the evidence DOESN'T support evolution, but you couldn't be further from reality. The evidence (from geology, the physics of establishing historical time, fossils of paleotology, and the genetics of molecular biology) all support evolution that is why it is the paradigm of the natural sciences. Of course Evolution may not be true, but at this point that is extremely unlikely (about as unlikely as the Sun not rising in the East tomorrow morning). Furthermore, what is the alternative? Does it explain the evidence better than Evolution? And actually I don't think anyone doubts evolution has occurred, even the creationists and intelligent design folks (almost universally non-scientists!) are merely proposing an alternative to Darwin's natural selection as the mechanism of evolution unless they're willing to say that the fossils don't exist, which is absurd or that God planted them there as a trick!

Furthermore, you don't understand how science works. There is no more assured path to fame and funding than to establish an alternative paradigm to the established one of your field or even to just to counter some small yet well established theory or fact. No one would hold back good science for fear of damaging their career. A more likely scenario is "cooking the data" to support your science, but doing that is very risky because if caught your career is finished and most likely you'd be fired from your job, you'd certainly never get funding again.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Dwayne

The evidence (from geology, the physics of establishing historical time, fossils of paleotology, and the genetics of molecular biology) all support evolution that is why it is the paradigm of the natural sciences. Of course Evolution may not be true, but at this point that is extremely unlikely (about as unlikely as the Sun not rising in the East tomorrow morning). Furthermore, what is the alternative? Does it explain the evidence better than Evolution? And actually I don't think anyone doubts evolution has occurred, even the creationists and intelligent design folks (almost universally non-scientists!) are merely proposing an alternative to Darwin's natural selection as the mechanism of evolution unless they're willing to say that the fossils don't exist, which is absurd or that God planted them there as a trick!

I think you are wrong about your evidence. You have to admit that geology is full of data that is inconsistent with your evolutionary time line. Animals with spinal cords below invertabrates, etc.

You'll have to give me an example of your physics of establishing historical time (dating methods?). If that's it, they are full of sweeping assuptions that bias the data toward the desired outcome. Let's also admit that any data that doesn't support the Litany gets round filed.

Then you talk about fossils. I believe fossils exhibit stasis and sudden appearance. Meaning, they do not support evolution.

Genetics. Genetics support information systems needing to be programed, not arising from nothing. Mutations are 99% fatal and the non-fatal ones are not long term beneficial. Sure you have sickle cells to talk about but that ain't a real improvement. What I'm saying is hwo does the addition of information happen to form a wing or feather. Where does it get it's direction. What about intermediate. SOme flapping not near flying thing is not advantageous to either the pure runner or flier, so how do you bridge the gap.

Evolution defies logic, yet what is the alternative. Can I say that the alternative is something no evolution lover wants to believe could be true, therefore they scoff at it as rubbish.

No one would hold back good science for fear of damaging their career. A more likely scenario is "cooking the data" to support your science, but doing that is very risky because if caught your career is finished and most likely you'd be fired from your job, you'd certainly never get funding again.

Regarding your above statement, you know there are tons of frauds old and modern that HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. What makes you think that there aren't more undiscovered.

Even more serious, is the embracing in science textbooks and the media of KNOWN frauds. Haeckle and the peppered moth to name two.

Why do people ignore that the information stated as scientific fact in the Scopes trial has all been discounted or found to be a complete fraud like Piltdown man. Doesn't that alarm people. It should and it should make them wonder, how reliable is science and their statement that so and so is fact.

Evolutionary history is filled with deceit and frauds and fairy tale, yet you speak as if it's good hearted and full of altruistic people. It's not. It's filled with egoistical people who DO want to further their fame and funding.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11,561 Posts
"I think you are wrong about your evidence. You have to admit that geology is full of data that is inconsistent with your evolutionary time line. Animals with spinal cords below invertabrates, etc."

I didn't establish the timeline, but I am certain whatever the current timeline is it has mistakes and science is the best way to identify those mistakes and come up with a more accurate timeline. BTW, what are these early intervebrates?


"Let's also admit that any data that doesn't support the Litany gets round filed."

No I won't admit that. There is no Litany, don't you get it? If I was a physicist who could show that say Potassium-Argon dating was fundamentally flawed I would be set.

"Then you talk about fossils. I believe fossils exhibit stasis and sudden appearance. Meaning, they do not support evolution."

Well if you define Evolution in the grandest sense of the change in species that has occurred over the course of the earth's history, then it's still evolution. As a couple of examples, there aren't any dinosaurs around now (if you don't count birds, maybe) and there don't appear to have been any bipedal apes prior to 6 or 7 million years ago. So something must account for that change, maybe they went extinct and God just created new species or aliens brought them here or whatever, you still have to account for the change in species over the course of earth's history (even if the time scale is way off).

"Genetics. Genetics support information systems needing to be programed, not arising from nothing. Mutations are 99% fatal and the non-fatal ones are not long term beneficial. Sure you have sickle cells to talk about but that ain't a real improvement. What I'm saying is hwo does the addition of information happen to form a wing or feather. Where does it get it's direction. What about intermediate. SOme flapping not near flying thing is not advantageous to either the pure runner or flier, so how do you bridge the gap."

The 3 fundamentals of Natural Selection are: more offspring are born in any given generation then ever survive to adulthood, those individuals vary in their genetic makeup (whether through mutations or more commonly just the sexual reshuffling of genes), those that survive to reproduce do so in part because their genes allow them to based on whatever the given environmental conditions are. The only direction in evolution is whatever the current enviroment is, which naturally is always in some state of flux. There are intermediate species in the fossil record, and your I can't imagine it being so, therefore it can't be so, is no kind of arguement.

"Evolution defies logic, yet what is the alternative. Can I say that the alternative is something no evolution lover wants to believe could be true, therefore they scoff at it as rubbish."

I believe creationsim could be true, what's the evidence for it?

"Regarding your above statement, you know there are tons of frauds old and modern that HAVE BEEN DISCOVERED. What makes you think that there aren't more undiscovered.

Even more serious, is the embracing in science textbooks and the media of KNOWN frauds. Haeckle and the peppered moth to name two.

Why do people ignore that the information stated as scientific fact in the Scopes trial has all been discounted or found to be a complete fraud like Piltdown man. Doesn't that alarm people. It should and it should make them wonder, how reliable is science and their statement that so and so is fact.

Evolutionary history is filled with deceit and frauds and fairy tale, yet you speak as if it's good hearted and full of altruistic people. It's not. It's filled with egoistical people who DO want to further their fame and funding.[/QUOTE]


You don't get it, the self-correcting nature of science is what makes it so great. Piltdown is the best example, it fulfilled expectations. No early hominid fossils were known at the time (or even where they would be found) but people said the defining characteristic of man is a large brain, from comparative anatomy we know man is most closely related to apes, what we should find then is essentially an apeman with a big brain! So some guy cooks up a hoax that is essentially a modern human braincase with an orangutan jaw (in England, no less) and people say Ah, Ah. But as the years go by they start finding all these small brained bipedal apemen in Africa (and nothing else in England) so they reassess it and low and behold the hoax is definitely disproven. You see it was inconsistent with all the other data, and that threw up a red flag, that's the risk you run if you're going to be dishonest. Because eventually you'll probably be caught when someone can't reproduce your work or simply the weight of the evidence makes your assertions untenable.

As for you assertion about evolutionary history being filled with frauds, you should know that Piltdown man was not cooked up by a scientist (but by a anti-evolutionist, although it's a mystery who it actually was that did it) but they were certainly fooled by it for a number of years. So what if non-altruistic, egomaniacs fill the sciences (not that i agree with that assessment)? That's not the question, the question is are they doing good work that is uncovering the facts about our universe.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,706 Posts
quoting someones opinion on whats going to happen 10,000 years from now sure makes alot of sense. thats a real long term plan huh cory?

you conveniently forgot to point out that the planning for yucca wasnt made under the gwb administration but facts dont matter anyway.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,429 Posts
Dwayne

Let's say you've read intelligent design arguments on creation. What don't you like about them. Certainly they make a better argument than I could.

I still don't get why you don't see the irony of Gould and Dawkins different evolution beliefs and that they directly contradict each other. THe question is how could they exist as valid if it's clear it's slow, or it's clear it's fast.

The FACT is it's clear it's not clear. Meaning, no evidence for one overwhelmingly above the other. If the evidence isn't there, then maybe, just maybe the whole thing didn't happen.

Intelligent Design give the alternative, and it's based on science, therefore why is it so unbelieveable. It is because it doesn't fit what evolutionary science guys want to believe. It does have implications which it's clear they don't like.
 

·
gazing from the shadows
Joined
·
27,239 Posts
Some examples of Administration Lysenkoism.

A flat refusal to believe the (by now) almost unanimous scientific consensus that human activity is contributing to global warming. In one case, the EPA had to scrap an entire section on climate change because the White Hous simply wouldn't accept any form of wording that was even remotely true to the scientific evidence.

The White House suppressed data on mercury emissions not because the science was wrong, but because it interfered with their plans to reduce regulation of coal-fired power plants. They also suppressed an EPA report on a bipartisan Senate alternative to their "Clear Skies" proposal because it concluded that the Senate version would do a better job of cutting pollution.

The Bush administration has interfered with CDC research on teen pregnancy that doesn't support its position on abstinence-only sex education programs. It has replaced condom information on government websites with questionable data emphasizing condom failure rates. And it has tried to push a link between abortion and breast cancer that is supported by no reputable scientific data.

A USDA researcher was prohibited from publishing his findings on health hazards posed by airborne bacteria resulting from farm waste. In addition, "a directive issued in February 2002 instructed USDA staff scientists to seek prior approval before publishing any research or speaking publicly on 'sensitive issues'...."

The administration ignored scientific analysis of Iraq's aluminum tubes that suggested they had nothing to do with uranium enrichment. We know all about that, don't we?

A team of scientists who drew peer-reviewed conclusions about the management of the Missouri River that was at odds with what the Bush administration wanted to hear was swiftly replaced with a "SWAT team" that could be trusted to say what they did want to hear.

A new Bush administration rule on peer-review would essentially require that all government research be vetted by industry reviewers before it was published. Tobacco research, for example, could not be reviewed by anyone else who received government funding, but only by industry funded "researchers."


From: http://www.calpundit.com/archives/003308.html
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top