Scientists Challenge U.S. on Scientific Distortions

rocketjam writes "The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." Other articles: Sydney Morning Herald, New York Times, The Guardian.

Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

The response to this has been that these scientists are motivated by partisan considerations and are trying to create a political issue.

Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?

Re:Who to believe?

[rjstanford]

Trouble is, if you can't count on 20 Nobel laureate scientists to make an honest, apolitical assessment of the state of science in our government, who on earth can you trust?

Why, the policymakers, of course! Silly question...

Re:Who to believe?

[Docrates]

I disagree. In an election year, with America as divided as ever, with all the political innuendo about corruption that's getting airtime lately, how can you release something like this and NOT make it political?

The fact that Novel laureates are involved just ads more credibility to a political statement, but it's still, by its very nature, a report on consistent behavior of a specifc president/government. If it wasn't political it would be about "The American Government", or "The DOD or the "CDC" and not "The Bush Administration".

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

That's a tautology. Your reasoning - the scientists are releasing a scientific paper. Their conclusions have political ramifications. Therefore they are making a political statement.

The fact is, the scientists are releasing a paper about science, and the fact it has political ramifications is just sad. Scientific facts are not political. They just exist.

By your reasoning, every textbook about evolution is a "political statement". Obviously, because there are politicians who disagree with it, it must be a political statement.

Re:Who to believe?

[Jim Starx]

Yes it is a political statement. I think what everyones discussing is, is it a politically motivated statement?

Re:Who to believe?

[kisak]

Having said this, I don't think it's wrong, and I agree wholeheartedly with their conclusions, but I find it silly that they refuse to accept it's a political statement.

As far as I understand it, the scientists are actually protesting against being pulled into the political prosess like this. The scientists reacts against becoming a tool in the political power game. They want to be able to do science that is independent of who-ever is president at any moment -- which is a basic right in any free country -- also the USA. The political statement is that they want politics out of their daily work.

Scientist are protesting what seems to be important to this administration is not that good science is done, but that the right conclusions are reported and "reached" from "science". Conclusions that happen to support current policies. This is an unacceptable interference by politicians into scientific institutions and work.

Science has earned its good name by being extremeely self critical and showing again and again to the public that their predictions are worth listening too. If scientists are caught making blunders or publishing deliberate misleading results, they will be punished by peers in the field, loss of private and government funding, and by the public perception (their source of future students) about that university or that scientific group. Of course, government plays it role in this process through funding (and by controlling nominations to "scientific panels").

It has of course been tempting for politicans for the last hundreds of years in different countries and settings to use the credibility scientist have build up to force through policies that current accepted scientific theories does not support. But it is a very dangerous path to go down, even if the administration strongly believe they know what is best (and even can be right in some cases).

What the Noble laurates have signed, is not about any particular policies, but the general freedom from political pressure to publish and present what is the current accepted scientific view. Then the politicians can defend or form their policies without pretending that the current scientific views in fact are something else.

To mention a (controversial) example, the current accepted scientific view is that global warming is real. Then we can start to discuss if Kyoto is a good idea or not. Or we can even discuss if sciencists in general are actually worth listening to (we should maybe trust the Bible instead), but that is different to claiming that the current accepted scientific view is something else.

And yes, you are right, the current scientific view about any subject can change in the future. And there are alway scientist that challenge the current view. But that is what science is all about, and this is how science evolves.

Re:Who to believe?

[Ryan Amos]

John Ashcroft. He's on a mission from God, so you know he speaks the truth.

Re:Who to believe?

[fireduck]

the scientists. at least they use footnotes so you can look up their sources and come to your own conclusion.

The Bush administration repeately hides things: who was on Cheney's energy panel, how much is budgeted for the war in Iraq, the true cost of the medicare bill, the amount of jobs to be created in the upcoming year. this list could go on. (and we won't get started on how we knew exactly how many tons of which chemicals and how many warheads, and exactly where a number of facilities were, and when we got there, we can't find a single one of them).

Scientists may be biased, but you can check their bias by following their citations. with politicians you can't. (Cheney is still trying to link Saddam to terrorism, even though everyone, including the President, has acknowledged that no conclusive link existed. where is Cheney getting his info from?)

Re:Who to believe?

[tashanna]

Have you ever tried to get 5 PHD's, much less 20, to agree on anything before? I think you don't understand the scientific process.

Zoom zoom zoom...

Re:Who to believe?

[Ichijo]

Have you ever tried to get 5 PHD's, much less 20, to agree on anything before? I think you don't understand the scientific process.

That's an example of observational selection, and argument from authority [xenu.net]. In other words, 20 Ph.D's may have agreed, but who knows how many Ph.D's in the world would disagree?

Also, we don't know the makeup of the group. With its liberal bias, the group could be composed entirely of Democrats. This would make it easier to come to an agreement on anything.

Re:Who to believe?

[Doomdark]

With its liberal bias, the group could be composed entirely of Democrats.

Care to point examples of "liberal bias"? That someone thinks creationism is utter rubbish (being not backed by a single scientifically sound argument)? That vast majority of studies consider global warming to be a potentially serious problem? That current understanding of toxicity of lead levels should be used on defining legal limits for lead levels in various substances? That current policies regarding sexuality (preaching abstinence as the main solution to teen-age pregnany and other rubbish) are idiotic?

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

Of course scientists could have some sort of political bias. But if they put out a report that has scientific facts, not just opinions, that support it and is signed by 20 Nobel laureates, who put their reputation on the line, I think it's safe to say it's more truth than political.

Fact or fiction

[Iowaguy]

I hate to rain on the parade of science good, politician bad, but I find this absolute statement of scientific truth to be disturbing at best. As a research scientist, I think I have some authority to comment on this from a different perspective than joe average code warrior.

By definition of the scientific method, there are no scientific facts. We have theories, which we beleive to be true as long as they stand up to all known tests. The momment they fail to explain something, then a new theory is needed.

Why am I reminding you of this? Because in this posts, and others throughout the thread, there as been an assumption that the statements of my esteemed colleques are scientific facts or truths. In reality, what they are is an interpretation of the data by these scienties, often in fields which they are not experienced. This is much different than absolute truth. In particular, it is critically important when viewed in the context of the science issues listed. Although you may not have thought of it, none of these theories are completey proven, especially to a level as, say, the charge on an electron is 1.6 *10(-19) C.

Case in point, another poster in this thread said that global warming IS occuring by CO2, and there is no disputing this. Actually, this finding is under debate, and by serious climatologists at MIT and other places. It turns out that serious people with serious ideas can assert that the earth naturally undergoes temperature fluctuations. Remember the ice-age, and other climate related disasters occured long before fossil fuels. So, we can say that we know the earth is getting warmer. This si the scientific fact so carelessly alluded too in this thread. But, can we absolutely say we know the cause? The answer is no. Several models do explain the temperature rise. Many prefer the fossil fuel effect becuase it stems from a simple correlation. Nature is not always kind and phenomena can arise from complex factors we don't understand. So, the best and only valid approach is discuss how likely a model is to be the "true" case, and openly talk about where it succeeds and where it fails. The sad truth is, most of us have not seen such a discussion becuase falling into the trap of oil industry bad is such a temptation. Therefore, one viewpoint is forwarded in the media and popular culute. This IS a political idea. And, scientists are human and history is replete with us falling into group think for wrong causes. So, I ask anyone on this list, to take a step back, take a deap breath, and ask themselves what do I know, and from where do I know. You probably will find (much to your dislike) you know all these facts from newsweek, and can't answer simple questions such as under what conditions do these global warming models fail? What approximations were made. Until you understand this, please, please do not jump up and down and claim to know something.

Before flaming me, I ask you to realize that nowhere have I stated which models do I happen to believe. So, arguemnts along those lines while passionate, but false. All I am saying is that the issues are more complicated than meet the eye, and even 21 random noble laureattes are not omniciant.

There is room for debate. In fact, debate is healthy and should occur. If you believe exactly what they say, then you are just as dogmatic as you are accusing the Bush adminstration being.

My two cents,
Iowa

Re:Unless

[FreshFunk510]

All I'm asking is that before you take Michael's "unbiased" commentary for fact, do some research of your own into these 20 scientists and I'll bet that you could draw pretty strong links from their findings to their funding.

Exactly. I couldn't agree anymore.

What if the report is to protect their reputation? It's feasible that 20 like biased scientists could group together to produce such a report that bolsters their previous findings as well as denounces the policies that were built on research by competing scientists.

This is very true. However your talk borders upon a "conspiracy theory", imho. Why? Common sense. 1) My guess is that Nobel Laureates, in general, don't have trouble getting funding for anythign they want to do (because of their reputation). 2) I know that funding for science is pretty stable even in these hard fiscal times. 3) I also assume that most Nobel Laureates have and feel this responsbility to report on science in an unbiased, scientific-method type of manner (yes, yes, i know they are all not like that but I'm going with probability here).

The truth is that in these kind of situation, as in many, you can always say "What if...". At some point you have to choose what you want to believe, who you want to trust and what you will accept as "fact" (or more truth than lies). No one has the time to verify everything that they read. If I did that, I'd never get through the day's paper. But you establish a sort of mental "% of reliability" according to your experience with that newspaper, periodical, reporter, scientist, think tank, etc. And in this case I'd trust a paper signed by 20 difference Nobel Laureates knowing how difficult it is to obtain one and how respected the award is (and the fact that the award is awarded by other scientists, not arbitrary people).

Re:Who to believe?

[FreshFunk510]

The "facts" of science are really just the observations.

That goes without saying.

The number of Nobel laureates is mentioned specifically to induce the reaction that you are having. The majority of voters are laypeople who are incapable of understanding the science, but who can (and do) parse the word "Nobel" to mean "trustworthy."

1) There's nothing wrong with my reaction being predictable even if that's the intention of their document. That shouldn't automatically mean that their report is full of lies. Sure, it might warrant skepticism, but my obvious response doesn't automatically discredit this document.

2) I really doubt that this is going to change the election. I really doubt that the average lay person will even know this report exists. If anything, only intellectuals and scientists will take any interest in such a report. Needless to say, I'm sure they will be more critical when parsing this report.

Lastly, I believe their prestige is on the line. Scientists reputations are built on the papers they put out there. If Nobel Laureates start putting on purely biased papers with little, no, or fallacious scientific evidence they will surely be shunned and silently discredited by their colleagues. I suppose this is where we disagree.

Re:Who to believe?

[Tiroth]

The core argument is not that the political decision differs from the conclusion reached by the scientists; they acknowedge that public policy is based on more than scientific facts:

The statement notes that while scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective.

Rather, the argument is that the Bush administration is distorting or suppressing the basic facts in order to make their political decision seem grounded in science. There is a difference in saying

1. It will cost too much money to make water 1% cleaner, saving 10 lives per year, so in the balance it isn't worth it.
2. Falsifying a report to say making the water 1% cleaner won't save any lives, so we shouldn't do it.

We are forced to make decisions like #1 all the time, because the fact is that there is not enough money or resources in the world to make everything perfect--not to mention that there are often competing interests. However, the congressmen and women making the decisions, as well as the public they represent, has a right to know the basis for those decisions.

Re:Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

...well, partly because they've dedicated their lives to the pursuit of scientific truth. What's more, if you're a good enough scientist to make a breakthrough worthy of a Nobel prize, odds are that you value the integrity of the scientific process above whatever partisan bickering may be going on at the time.

I'm not saying that these people are immune to political motivation. I am saying that if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates. That twenty Nobel laureates people felt strongly enough about this to put their names to paper over it should, at the very least, give a person pause.

In short, you shouldn't trust anyone. The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

"You shouldn't trust anyone"? No, of course you should trust people, especially people who demonstrate a strong will to improve the lot of their fellow human. The Bush administration, for example, has relied heavily on the trust of the American public, and a majority of the American people have granted them that trust. Now, you shouldn't exercise blind trust in anybody, and skepticsm is healthy, but trust is an absolutely essential part of human interaction.

That said, I'm inclined to think that the scientists that signed this paper are considerably less politically motivated than the administration.

Re:Who to believe?

[DeltaSigma]

Is this conversation serious? Are we really arguing about whether or not a particular group might be more politically motivated than a group of politicians?

Re:Who to believe?

[Scrameustache]

Oh, sure. "Trust us, we're scientists."

Yeah, I mean, politicians are MUCH more trustworthy when it comes to science than scientists...pffft, what do they know?

Re:Who to believe?

[American AC in Paris]

"...if ever there was a group of people capable of making an honest, accurate assessment of this sort of thing, it's a bunch of Nobel laureates." Oh, sure. "Trust us, we're scientists." "The noble pursuit of science." The notion that scientists are completely objective is a very shaky one at best.

Fair enough, seeing as at no point have I even suggested that scientists are "completely objective". I said they were more likely than anyone else to be able to present a rational, objective analysis of the situation. Clearly, you disagree.

So, as twenty Nobel laureates are so clearly incapable of critical, objective thought, who should we look to for rational analysis of the role of science in today's government?

I understand your skepticism, but honestly, your life will be largely fruitless if you refuse to place your trust in other people. There's no way any one of us is qualified to make more than a small fraction of the decisions one typically faces in the modern world--there's simply too much you'd need to learn to make your own rational decisions to the exclusion of the advice of others.

Personally, I can't think of many groups of people as learned and diverse as a full twenty Nobel laureates--these people don't grow on trees, and while there are a few exceptions, the majority of them are frighteningly intelligent people. I trust them to know what they're talking about when it comes to conducting and analyzing scientific research...

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

The shallow-minded slashdrones will say "Bush is evil, these scientists are 100% correct!" Instead, how about doing some research of your own in order to come to a conclusion? You'll probably find that the truth, as usual, lies somewhere in the middle.

When it comes to political questions, sometimes the truth is in the middle. When it comes to science questions, such as whether or not global warming is happening and whether or not we are contributing to it and whether or not the icecaps are melting into the ocean at an alarming rate, well, the scientists are correct, and the administration is wrong.

Human carbon dioxide emissions raise the overall temperature. It's proven, and it doesn't need more study. If you disagree, you are wrong, just as wrong as you are if you disagree with the fact of evolution (as opposed to the *theory* of how it happened.) There is no middle ground here, there is science, and there is expensive wishful thinking in the form of industry/government supported pseudo-science.

Re:Who to believe?

[cardshark2001]

There is no such thing as the "fact of evolution". You should really check your sources on that one. It's called a theory for a reason.

Actually, you should check yours. You are obviously very misinformed if you believe that it is only a theory that organisms change over time (i.e., through evolution). The "theory" refers to scientists trying to explain the available *facts*. If you believe that organisms do not evolve over time, you discard radioactive dating, archaeology, paleontology, biology, and many other ologies too numerous to name.

Evolution happened. That is a scientific fact. The *theory* is trying to explain how it occured.

Re:Who to believe?

[scrytch]

There is no such thing as the "fact of evolution". You should really check your sources on that one. It's called a theory for a reason.

No one but trolls and "intelligent design" kooks throw out this canard any more. Actual scientists call it an actual observed phenomenom. [talkorigins.org] Whether you want to call it a "fact" or a "theory backed up by emperical observation" is up to you. Technically YOU only "theoretically" exist unless you've got some kind of cosmic theorem prover that goes beyond A=A (wow I managed to insult both creationists AND randroids). ...rest of obvious trolling deleted. Gee wiz, I guess we haven't invented test, observation, and measurement to come up with any numbers.

there are two ideas under the word "evolution"

[raygundan]

There are two separate ideas that fall under the name "evolution." The first is the basic idea of one thing evolving into another-- there are a number of examples that we have watched happen right before our eyes. The common example is the English moth, biston betularia-- whose population was 95% soot-colored after heavy industry in the late 1800s, but was primarily light-colored in the years prior.

The second is the theory that evolution is responsible for everybody being here. This isn't provable, but it seems to be the best no-magical-stuff explanation we have right now. This is where you're right-- evolution-as-creation is a theory.

The idea that evolution happens is a solid fact. We just don't know if it's the only thing at work that could have led to people. (or other various animals and plants)

Evolution before Darwin

[tgibbs]

There is no such thing as the "fact of evolution". You should really check your sources on that one. It's called a theory for a reason.

Actually, evolution was accepted as fact even before Darwin advanced a theory to explain it. Before Darwin, there actually were real scientists (as opposed to religious ideologues masquerading as scientists) who took creation seriously as a theory of the origin of species. But even before Darwin, they had rejected the Biblical notion of creation as patently inconsistent with the data that clearly demonstrated evolution over time. The creationist theories before Darwin tended to postulate multiple creation events at different times and places. Of course, after Darwin, all the real biologists embraced the new theory, leaving behind the Biblical zealots who wouldn't even accept creation theories that didn't agree with Genesis.

Re:Who to believe?

[div_2n]

Actually, measurements of carbon dioxide emissions taken from ice bubbles in the Antarctic and Greenland ice sheets show a huge increase in the ppm from pre-Industrial Revolution to now. From the Industrial Revolution to 1958, the ppm grew from 280 ppm to 315 ppm. From 1958 until now the ppm has grown from 315 to over 350 ppm in 1987 (1). Can that increase be justified by increased natural carbon dioxide production or could it be more closely tied to human production?

In case you aren't counting, from sometime in the 1700's to 1958, carbon monoxide rose 35 ppm. It took just 29 years for the same amount of increase to take place.

(1) U. Siegenthaler and H. Oeschger, "Biospherice CO2 Emissions during the Past 200 Years Reconstructed by Deconvolution of Ice Core Data," Tellus, vol. 39B (1987): 140-154

Re:Who to believe?

[Mudd Guy]

I must disagree with the assertion that the truth usually lies in the middle. I think that assertion comes from a culture of inclusion and relativism which results in a lack of ability to recognize that some "points of view" are JUST WRONG.

In this case, ignoring good scientific information is JUST WRONG. There's no middle ground here.

As discussed in the report and articles, the scientists are not taking issue with the policy decisions, becuase that is a much more complicated issue. The scientists just object to the exclusion of good science from the decision making process. How can you argue with that?

If it were simply the Bush administration not always following the policy recommendations of the scientific community, it would be an entirely different matter. Policy making requires cost/benefit analysis. Good science should be used to inform this analysis.

Re:Who to believe?

[drooling-dog]

Why should these scientists be any less prone to political bias than anyone else?

You'll have to make up your own mind whether to believe the results of scientific studies or the Bush administration. Which side is "right" on any particular issue is not the point here. What the administration has been doing is squelching the results of studies and replacing scientists who don't give them the results that they and their big contributors want. That is the point.

This has been an on-going issue for the past couple of years, and pretty much every scientist who is paying attention is aware of it. This report is simply an attempt to inform the general public about what's been happening.

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

Well, as a scientist who is a lifetime registered independent and who's point of view is at least unbiased enough that I have been attacked on Slashdot as a flag waving, right wing, conservative neonazi, capitalist pig, America right or wrong type and a politically correct, commie pinko, marxist cant spouting anticapitalist lacky. . .for the same bloody post, I can at least put forward my observations:

These scientists may well have a political bias in attacking the Bush administration, but it isn't necessary. You could attack any administration for exactly the same thing.

Science is in a deplorable state, not just in America, but nearly everywhere, do to being so heavily influenced and outright directed by politics that even many scientists are unaware of it. Poorly trained in colleges that have been so embued with "political" science many of them can't even recognize a valid scientific methodology from an invalid one, and not a few now overtly claim that such isn't even necessary, that truth is the pragmatic.

And they still call themselves scientists.

War is Peace, brother.

Newspeak is completely destroying science and admiting fields into the fold for civil and academic political purposes which have little to no scientific basis at all.

The issue isn't the Bush administration. The issue is administration. And there are damned few "scientists" these days who even have the knowledge, let alone the guts, to stand up to it.

It's not good for recieving grants and tenure. In some places it's not good for staying out of jail, and I don't mean in China.

The situation is deplorable.

That's my opinion as a scientist.

Tomorrow I shall return to my usual Slashdot rant about how business has devolved college education to a tradeschool for the uneducatable.

Please tune in.

This has been a broadcast of the Old Curmudgeon Network. Slashdot editors are not responsible for my posted views. They've got enough troubles supporting their own.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[kfg]

What science are you in?

Physics is my primary field.

I came to realise that there are different kinds of science. Social scientists tend to find their own truths and fight over it. Truth in this sense is not absolute, it depends on the proponent.

Q.E.D. I'm afraid, with this caveat: I used the word truth in the colloquial sense, not the scientific sense. Thus when I said truth I meant something akin to fact. The syntax and grammer of English is not suitable for making the distinction casually unfortunately. You must choose between sounding like an verbose, overacademic pompous ass, or colloquial brevity and reasonable grammar. I try to steer a course down the middle. I often fail.

In the sense that the word "truth" might be used in a mathmatically technical sense the social sciences contain little to no truth at all, although they proudly stand on what they claim to be a mathmatically scientific foundation. That foundation is made up of mathmatical aether filled aerogel.

When you begin fighting over untestable, nonabsolute "truth," you are not discussing science at all. You are discussing religion.

Natural sciences, however, are much more focussed on the one truth which can be proved either by formal methods (which themselves are known to be correct) or by facts.

And there is even a name for this: Science.

If a nobel laureate (of the natural sciences) says that someone is twisting the truth, then it should make you think. If 20 nobel laureates do so, then even more.

Over the course of my liftime I have often been in the habit of hanging out with Nobel Laureates and nominees for periods of time, although far less so in my dottage than in my youth. Now I tend to hang out with their writings far more. I think that most of them would agree substantially with my post, and I think my post supports the point of view that the Bush administration is twisting the truth.

As did Clinton's, Big Bush's, Reagan's, Carter's, Ford's, Nixon's, LBJ's and Kennedy's.

Those are the ones with which I can claim some personal familitarty. I can rely on literature to assure me the practice is not entirely contemporary, but accelerting. Rapidly.

KFG

Re:Who to believe?

[tc]

What has left-wing versus right-wing got to do with scientific questions like: are we fucking up the environment?

Regardless of your personal political leanings, why would you want to ignore scientific evidence that we're destroying the planet? The only explanations I can think of are:

(1) You get political funding from Big Oil.

(2) You are uncomfortable with the logical consequences of taking appropriate action, and since you don't want to think of yourself as being anti-environment, it's easier to just convince yourself that your 16MPG SUV isn't really doing any harm.

Why would someone want to believe that we're ruining the planet? It doesn't serve either left-wing or right-wing ideology. The only reason to believe that is because the evidence tell us so.

Re:Who to believe?

[Syowr]

Um I haven't checked out each of the scientsts on the list but they cover a MASSIVE range of scientific fields. Overall it would seem difficult to find a MORE qualified group of individuals to speak on "the state of science in our government"

Pray tell who would you ask for opinions on this, if not the scientists at the top of these scientific fields?

This isnt a hollywood star saying they think Bush is making crap up and playing with some results. These are the people who are making this science happen every day.

Facts are not partisan and its shameful that they could be construed as such.

Re:Who to believe?

[680x0]

Some of the most blindingly leftist people I know are otherwise quite bright

So, the smart people you know have "left" political leanings? Maybe this should tell you something. Has it occurred to you that they are correct, and you are wrong? I suggest you ask them who you should vote for this fall, and follow their advice.

And, if you'd bothered to read the article, the scientists in question are not trying to influence politics, but trying to keep from politicians from influencing their research.

Re:Who to believe?

[680x0]

Maybe the "otherwise" was unclear?

No, it was quite clear. Quite clearly the result of denial on your part. If someone is correct on everything outside of politics, the likelihood of them also being right on politics is greater than yours. Clearly.

I think you mean...

[mekkab]

accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry.

Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.

Re:I think you mean...

[tds67]

Bush administration? I believe you mean 'nukular' weaponry. Common mistake.

I wish people would lay off of Bush. I never go hungry since he's put food on my family.

Re:I think you mean...

[LarsWestergren]

Now now, stop misunderestimating him. You are lucky he is not a revengeful person.

http://www.dubyaspeak.com/ [dubyaspeak.com]

Point

[onyxruby]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

I do believe that's the point.

WMD?

[zgwortz962]

Typical. Next thing you know, they'll be claiming some country has Weapons of Mass Destruction as a pretext to start a war.

Oops. Too late.

Re:WMD?

[proj_2501]

Pakistan is not really that hostile (except to India) and they are MUSLIM not ARABIC.

Uh huh..

[grub]

"We have to find a way to reach out to them and try to come to an understanding"

Being scientists the touchy-feely "reach out" approach won't work. They'll have to come up with solid data to refute these claims.

Money is a double edged sword: it's necessary for science & research but it can warp the results to be more business friendly.. and if the results are skewed then it's not science, it's bullshit.

disclaimer: I work in the biomedical research industry but not in the U.S.

Marburger says...

[rsidd]

"...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."

Which has nothing to do with the accusations the scientists are making. I wonder what sort of mindset the administration has when its science advisor can't even read the letter he's responding to.

Re:Marburger says...

[vondo]

Yes, this struck me too. But, hey, he's a politician. When you don't want to answer the question asked, answer the one you have a prepared answer for.

Q: Mr. President, where are the weapons of mass destruction you said were in Iraq?
A: Saddam was an evil man who tortured his citizens.

Re:Marburger says...

[aws4y]

Yeah, the national institues of health also have stated to confrences of developmental scientest that any reseach showing that, single parent families of families with working mothers, are just as stable as the "normal" 2 parent 1 income house holds, will not be funded. This happened at a confrence on child development. My mother an her collegues were shocked at this announcement. I, of course, didnt care, I am only an astrophysics student, then Bush announces his Mars push and Hubble is gone and all the astronomy probes that were planed for the next ten years are in jepordy. So yes this adiministration has a very poor record of distrorting facts and ignoring scientific goals.

PS All that NSF funding has been going to projects that benefit DARPA and Homeland Security not fundamental science.

Re:Marburger says...

[tm2b]

"...but we doubled the NIH budget and increased NSF funding."

Translation: "Like, I'm so confused! I thought we paid these guys off!"

I don't understand...

[enderanjin]

Why are there 20 Nobel prize winners who can refute our findings, while we have an oaf as our head science guy?

A couple more data points

[vondo]

The summary doesn't point out that that the report (which is well worth a read) takes pains not to criticize the decisions of the Bush administration, but takes them to task for distorting the scientific input into that process. For instance, you might decide (as a political matter) that reducing lead exposure to children is too costly for the benefits received. This is a political question. Removing people from a panel and censoring the science that can be presented in making that decision is an abuse of the public trust.

On their website is also a form to "sign" the statement yourself if you have an advanced degree in a scientific or technical field or are a graduate student pursuing one. Please read the report, though, before signing on.

I like fark's headline best

[enrico_suave]

Fark [fark.com] had the best headline for this:

"The Union of Concerned Scientists says the Bush administration manipulates and suppresses science. The administration points out that the Union of Bought and Paid for Scientists disagrees"

of course he did

[happyfrogcow]

Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement.

Yes it's biased. Biased towards scientific truth instead of political motives (though by creating the document in the frist place, the scientists are expressing some political motives).

And yes he should be troubled. Being a science adviser and having 20 highly acclaimed scientists say you are wrong makes you look like bad.

that being said, time to go RTFA and see where i'm wrong.

Your dealing with a administration...

[Ummon_i]

who thinks creationism is a valid science rather then a religious doctering.

They are luddites plain and simple.

They came out against the a health study a couple of weeks ago. The study said that americans or too fat and should eat less fat and more veggies. Real contravercial stuff..

Re:Your dealing with a administration...

[mapmaker]

They are luddites plain and simple.

No, they're politicians plain and simple. They don't really believe creationism is a valid science, but they need to pander to the ignorant voters that do. Bible-thumpin', science-hatin' fundamentalists are a large part of the Republican base and must be pandered to in order to keep them from voting for Pat Buchanan.

The name...

[FrostedWheat]

The Union of Concerned Scientists

Oh c'mon, is that the best they could do? How about something totally original like... 'The League of Extraordinary Scientists' or the 'Fellowship of the Scientists'. That kind of thing!

So...

[herrvinny]

So, what you're telling me is that Bush is stupid as an orc*, a troll who's pro-business, and cares only about his reelection prospects... What else is new?

*apologies to the Orcish-Americans out there, I know that's a grave insult.

He was our University President

[netglen]

I'm amazed in seeing how far John Marburger has gone. I first knew him when he was the president of SUNY at Stony Brook when I was a student. He then went to Brookhaven National Labs and now he's the President's Science Advisor. I'll be real interested in how this whole event carries out. Personally I found Marburger to be a really upfront and a likeable person. I hope these high level politcs hasn't changed him.

Wired's article.

[CFBMoo1]

Here's one on wired. [wired.com] I saw that one before the headline here. As for who to believe, I'm inclined to go with twenty Nobel laureates and 40 other scientists over one Whitehouse full of politicians. No matter what your opinion on politics, don't forget to get out and vote this year and let them know how you feel about this and other issues.

New Guidlines

[ackthpt]

New Administration Guidelines:

Pi has been redefined as 3, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.

e has been redefined as 2, any greater precision may be an aid to terrorists.

Air purity regulations have been relaxed so reduced visibility will help obscur tall buildings from planes piloted by terrorists.

Water purity regulations have been relaxed so terrorists drinking it may go to their martyrdom sooner, without killing patriotic americans.

The etters '','' nd '' hve been strken from the lphbet to hnder terrorst communctons.

Your Presdent thnks you for dong your prt to defet the enmes of merc nd protect freedom!

From the astronomy angle...

[DirtyJ]

Science under the Bush adminstration is troubling indeed. Recently we've heard talk of reallocating the bulk of NASA's budget toward going to Mars. This is both half-hearted and doomed to failure since most people realize that hundreds of billions of dollars will be required. Suggesting modest budgetary increases for the program, plus sucking essentially all of NASA's space science money into a manned Mars mission is asinine. Killing off space science will result in much, much more harm to astronomical progress than will be offset by going to Mars.

We also see the imminent demise of HST. I know the timing is apparently just coincidental, but some speculate that killing off the Shuttle program now has a lot to do with the potential budget pressures imposed by the Mars travel.

I don't mean to disparage the idea of manned travel to Mars. I think it would be as nifty as the next person, and the advances required will no doubt produce ancillary technological benefits that will benefit everyone. However, the current leaning seems to be toward severely damaging existing and planned space astronomy to get there. Not good.

It is truly a shame

[instantkarma1]

that politics influences the scientific process. This administration, in particular, seems to know no bounds when it comes to manipulating facts to better fit with their agenda.

They (seemingly) manipulate intelligence reports to paint an incredibly grim picture of Iraqi's WMD program in order to justify an attack on a sovereign nation

The view the same job market and economy reports we do, and yet see 250 million new jobs being created this year, and that the economy is doing just fine, thank you.

Their interpretation of the Constitution allows attempt to circumvent the separation of church and state by giving your tax dollars to faith-based programs.

Why not circumvent the scientific process if it will appease the American Taliban (read the very left-wing christian fundamentalists, not your every day christian) and keep the $$$ rolling in from big corporations?

The short-sightedness of this administration is staggering. Yes, everyone knows other administrations have been corrupt as well, but Christ! They didnt' have the chutzpah this one does.

They scare me.

Re:It is truly a shame

[madMingusMax]

I think you mean "Right-wing" .

This is the same administration who has essentially trampled your civil liberties as well.
This is the same administration who have turned a $200billion surplus into a $700billion deficit.
This is the same administration who wants to remove Evolution from schools and teach Creationism.
This is the same administration who thinks that abstience is the only topic which needs to be discussed in Sexual Education.

What's trampling over the scientific process?

Demon Haunted World

[rjelks]

I'm not surprised by the lack of concern in the general population. We've still got school districts that are fighting to keep evolution out of the public schools! I'm afraid too many people's idea of science are shows like "FOX Special - "Conspiracy Theory: DID WE LAND ON THE MOON?" If we as a society don't understand science, then our leaders will get away with shuffling off pseudo-science, self-serving, political-oriented junk on the country. If anyone wants a good read, Carl Sagan co-wrote this awesome "book [amazon.com] about science vs. ignorance. /rant off

Stop overstating your case...

[LostCluster]

The Bush administration has started to get into a bad habit of saying things it can't back up, when simply telling the truth would have been good enough.

We had a legit reason to invade Iraq, it just wasn't the one the administration was talking about. At the end of the first Gulf War, the peace treaty said that Iraq would not have WMDs, and the UN would get to have uninterfered with inspections to make sure they didn't. Iraq was playing games with the inspectors, so we couldn't be sure that they didn't have any WMDs. That alone is a justification to attack, they had broken the deal that ended the first war.

They were playing the hidden ball trick and making it look like they had WMDs. That was the reason Saddam had to go, because we couldn't take the risk that he just might have the ability to give his WMD program to Al Queda.

But, instead of saying that it was a worst case situation that we should have the ability to prove isn't happening but can't, the Bush administration took it a step foward and said that Iraq actually did have WMDs, and it turns out Saddam had the biggest bluff in history working. Saddam and the people around him sure thought they had WMDs, but the truth turns out to be that his scientists couldn't come up with the goods but were too scared of him to say they faied. Oops...

Had Bush just stuck to what he knew was true, he could have justified the war with a weaker but still good enough justification. But, instead, he over inflated the information, and now he's got a credibility problem that infects nearly everything else he says. He ended up doing a right thing but for the wrong reasons...

Re:Stop overstating your case...

[zeux]

That's a point, but that's not the real reason.

Iraq decided back in November 2000 to start selling oil in Euros instead of Dollars [cnn.com], and the bad side for America is that it did succeed.

This war was fought to prevent other countries from doing the same. Like Venezuela [trinicenter.com] who felt under a coup (a US funded coup) just after trying to exchange oil with services instead of dollars.

The thing is that if OPEC starts to accept Euros for oil purchases the US will economically collapse because of its huge debt (way worse than Argentina when it did collapse).

Full explanation and documents to prove this point of view [feasta.org].

This has never been discussed in any major US media. Weird.

critics are hardly partisan

[belmolis]

The scientists signing the letter do not represent the Union of Concerned Scientists. They are an independent group who are merely endorsing the UCS report. Furthermore, they include scientists who are not particularly left-wing, such as H-bomb designer Richard Garwin and physicist Norman Ramsey, both of whom served as advisers to Republican administrations. According to this news item [philly.com], organizations opposing the Bush administration policy include: the National Academies of Science, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the Federation of American Scientists, and the Association of American Medical Colleges. The opposition isn't coming from the left fringe; it is mainstream.

Troubling...

[Lebofsky]

I find it troubling how much of a disconnect there is in the American public (and beyond) such that political opinion overshadows scientific fact and mathematical logic. Yet another sign our education system is in crisis.

Even sadder is that people generally don't care to understand the difference between 1 million and 1 billion and 1 trillion. It's all just some big number to them, but a few extra zeros really matter!

As always, I blame the news media (present company excluded, of course). They could really help bridge the gaps but they don't. I believe a law should be passed that every number ever stated in the news should be followed by an analogous per capita statstic. Like, $87 Billion more for the War on Iraq? That'll be $300 each per American. Funny.. Isn't that exactly what Bush gave us in the first tax year after he was elected?

Oops. Too much coffee. Back to work..

- Lebofsky

Nothing to see here

[JustAnOtherCodeSerf]

Everything's fine. According to the president himself, we don't have nuclear weapons... we have nukular weapons... a totally different thing.

*whew*

Nothing new?

[FreshFunk510]

I've seemed to notice that many /.-ers have this opinion of "nothing new". Yes, this is nothing new (especially if you're a skeptic of the Bush administration) but to me this means something big.

The reason is is that much of our bias, one way or another, has come from the media. Yes, much of it can be based on facts, but I think we'd all be lying to ourselves considering the amount of biased media out there. While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.

Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought out or created like special think tank groups out there. So, therefore, this sort of report gives our concerns about the Bush administration, in my opinion, real legitimacy. No longer can people say that our skepticism is the result of "liberal media".

You need to be more of a skeptic

[HarveyBirdman]

While scientists could have their own political agenda, the fact that this report was signed off by 20 Nobel Laureates gives it real legitimacy.

Laureates in what, though? Is a Nobel prize winner for work in cosmology really worth listening on climatology? Does a prize for quantum physics give one the right to judge dangerous lead levels?

Nobel Laureates don't come a dime a dozen and they can't be bought

Bullshit. They can suffer from ideologies just as much as anyone. Some of the most ideologically blinkered people I have met in my life have had PhDs and were leaders in their professional fields. They get so many accolades in their field they think they can do no wrong elsewhere.

UCS isn't exactly an unbiased organization...

[cruc]

....that has consensus within the scientific community, though maybe they have consensus with the politically left which they are most certainly (the city where they are located should be a tiny hint). That they are unbiased and indendant is laughable.

UCS Background:

-The Union of Concerned Scientists was born out of a protest against the war in Vietnam. In 1969, a group of 48 faculty members at MIT -- the original "union" -- sponsored a one-day work stoppage of scientific research. A conference that coincided with the strike included appearances from such notables as Noam Chomsky (who is now recognized as a leader of the 21st Century "hate-America left"); Eric Mann, who led the 1960s terrorist Weather Underground; and Jonathan Kabat, who argued: "We want capitalism to come to an end."

-Later that year, when the founding document of the Union of Concerned Scientists was formalized, the United States' relationship with the Soviet Union was featured even more prominently than environmental issues. Three of the five propositions in the founding document concern political questions of the Cold War -- a topic about which even the brightest physicists and biologists can claim no particular expertise.

-UCS continues to involve itself in issues where scientific credentials carry little weight. For example, the group opposes urban sprawl, disputes a war in Iraq, and supports abortion. While these positions may be perfectly legitimate in themselves, they are hardly the product of "rigorous scientific analysis."

Issues:

-In 1998 UCS issued a report saying that the threat of North Korea developing nuclear weapons was exaggerated and that the bellicose nation posed no imminent danger.

-In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of "global warming" and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that "the scientific community has reached a consensus." But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called "consensus" was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a "deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation."

-UCS invested significant resources in "a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly." Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it's supposed to kill.

-Based, we suppose, on some "science" or other, UCS's Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it "probably represents a turning point." What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing down.

-In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. "It is now abundantly clear," the group wrote, "that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages." Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing.

-To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph's Nader's Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.
UCS apparently hasn't learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don't succeed, scare, scare again.

(As quoted from www.activistcash.com )

Unbiased? "Rigorus" scientific processes? Yea right.

Cruc

US is like the roman empire

[superpulpsicle]

All these corruptions and political BS is going to abuse our scientific and military strength.

It's almost inevitable that history repeats itself. US is on track to crash and burn like the Roman Empire.

Just the facts, please

[zigzag]

We'd all be better off if we would stick to discussing the facts rather than immediately questioning people's motivations. No matter what the political bent of these scientists is, the question is whether or not there is any truth in their charges and should something be done. Let's try to be adults.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

[Futurepower(R)]

Here is some already formatted HTML you can copy into your email client (preferably Mozilla). Remember to remove the blank spaces Slashdot puts in URLs.

U.S. government corruption: Two Stories

Killing and destroying property
N.Y. Times editorial [nytimes.com]:
"... Americans paid Ahmad Chalabi to gull them into a war that is costing them a billion a week and a precious human cost."
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/15/opinion/15DOWD.h tml?ex=1077956111&ei=1&en=a6370df01dc83363

Lying about scientific facts
"The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals..."
N.Y. Times [nytimes.com]:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RE SE.html?ex=1077771600&en=fe9176d8d470477b&ei=5062& partner=GOOGLE
The Guardian [guardian.co.uk]:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,115118 7,00.html
Wired News [wired.com]:
http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00. html
Union of Concerned Scientists [ucsusa.org]:
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/rsire lease.html

Troubled...

[Jackmon]

Why is Bush's crowd always 'troubled' about these things? .. as if they were dainty sensitive little people.

"Ouch, you're troubling my poor little mind with your big sciency words and all your facts."

"Gee, I'm just so troubled that you noticed that we're lying through our teeth. It just hurts so much when point this out to everyone. Please let us deceive in peace so that we won't be troubled."

Here is the actual report:

[DF5JT]

http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/rsi/RSI _final_fullreport.pdf

History of the Union of Concerned Scientists

[mkw]

Whether or not being a Nobel Lauriate somehow makes one immune to politics or completely unbiased (it certainly doesn't, but I doubt that it's possible to explain here why that is the case to someone that believes otherwise), the Union of Concerned Scientists is certainly a political organization. It was founded in 1969 by a group of MIT professors that wanted to protest the Vietnam war and has morphed into an environmental group with positions tha are considered progressive (in the US, at least). If you have any doubts about the claim that the UCS is political, or that it is progressive, I would suggest reading:

• The USC Top Victories for 2003 [ucsusa.org]
• The USC Mission Statement [ucsusa.org]
• The USC Founding Document [ucsusa.org]

Unfortunately, you may have to wait a few days, first, as their site has been ./'ed

Just Read It

[Sinical]

Here [ucsusa.org]

Here are their main findings:

1.There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.

2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.

3. There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.

4. There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the manipulation, suppression, and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented.

I must say that I'm *shocked* (*shocked*!) that anyone could suppose the Bush administration has ever been anything less than completely forthright about anything with the American public (cough, IRAQ, cough). I mean, they've never stretched or distorted facts to fit their preconceptions before, ever. Really!

Re:Oh, boy!

[Gil-galad55]

Actually, they've been working on the report for over a year and released it as soon as they were finished. They didn't expect it to take this long. It's in the article.

Re:Oh, boy!

[hpavc]

I am sure they didnt think they would have such a wealth of a source to write about.

Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[cryptochrome]

See, what y'all have to understand is, it's not politics, it's just that scientists hate bad science. When they see it, they just can't help themselves, they have to destroy it. And by destroy I don't mean bury or ignore it, I mean publicly tearing that faulty logic/research to pieces and sending the proponent of it packing with tears of shame in his/her eyes. They absolutely will not give up until the fool either admits s/he was wrong, proves they are right, or is so thoroughly discredited they can't even get anyone to listen anymore.

Why? Because when someone is clearly WRONG, they'll be damned if they let them pretend that they're right. And they especially hate it when psuedo-scientists try to use their profession.

Remember Galileo? Hundreds of years of attempted suppression, but they never gave up and never let anyone forget until the Church officially apologized. There were a lot of reasons for Vatican II, but I'd argue that the Church's losing battle against the forces of reason was the major one. Darwin? They're still fighting tooth and nail. States can pass laws allowing "creation science" but they soon find they're the butt of ridicule and have acquired a reputation for ignorance. If Junior has any brains at all (which is debatable) he'll quietly start leaving the science to the scientists... and if he doesn't he'll soon find his intelligence will be a rather large issue.

Re:Scientists. Hate. Bad Science.

[grannyknot]

Um, Galileo was considered a heretic not because he was a scientist, but because he couldn't back a lot of his own claims up, and, because he also called the Pope an idiot.

Anyone who has taken an introductory course in the history of science knows that the reasons for Galileo's house arrest were complex. He did not believe that the Pope, who had been his friend, would let him fall to the inquisition. And for proof, all he needed to show were the moons of Jupiter that his discovered (and named after the Medici family - his patrons).

Similarly, much ado is made of how Copernicus had to "fight the power" of the church because he dared to propose the earth went around sun, but in reality tables produced from Copernicus's circular orbits were less accurate than their Ptolemiac predecessors.

Copernicus never fought the power. His book wasn't published until after his death.

The other thing that people forget is that science is a tool, not a means to an end. Science teaches us how to make things and how to better exploit the world around us. To say that there is an innate value system built around science is absurd. At the end of the day, there's little difference between Martha Stewart teaching how to put little curly cues on a cake, and a scientist teaching how to make an atom split. It's just an exotic Home Depot, and nothing more. As such, science must always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will.

Science may be a tool, but it is a tool for understanding ourselves, the world around us, and the universe at large. And it does have a value system - it is simply that the truth will prevail through peer review.

To say that it teaches us how to better exploit the world is also a misnomer. It teaches us how things work - the exploitation comes in the hands of technologists and engineers who apply the knowlege.

Calling science an "exotic Home Depot" is absurd. Science does not build tools, it builds knowledge. It's more akin to the best-stocked library in the world than a home improvement store.

Saying that science must "always take a back seat to political considerations and the popular will" is ludicrous. Before important work by scientists, it was believed that tetrahedral lead was a perfectly innocuous additive to gasoline. The popular will wanted cheap gas that didn't make their car engines knock, and the political will was to keep the lead and oil companies happy by sweeping study after study pointing out the harmful effects of lead under the rug. It was only by the prolonged actions of scientists (and yes [gasp] environmentalists) that we are now breathing much less-toxic air. Politicians love nothing more than to protect the status quo (and prove that their opposition is a bunch of lying dogs even though they support nearly the same issues, but I digress), and the people are happiest when they're ignorant. It may be an unenviable task, but until the people and the government become interested in the truth, it will be up to scientists to push their ideas as hard as they can.

It must always tell the truth, to be sure, but we are under no obligation to abide by it or accept that what it teaches is useful or even valuable.

(I find it kind of ironic that you hold science to the standard of always telling the truth, but you don't put the same qualifications on politicians or the "popular will.")

We must, by definition, abide by the truth. If we did not accept Copernicus and Kepler's truth about how the planets really moved, or if we didn't accept Newton's laws, space travel would be impossible. Ignoring the truth does not make it go away, and is usually much more painful than just accepting it in the long run.

Finally, knowledge is always valuable. Let us not forget that knowledge = power.

Re:Oh, boy!

[GaelenBurns]

Regardless of when the release time is, they make excellent points. I hate the fact that chosing an inoppourtune timing casts doubt on the results. What's more, it's not like we're in October, here. This is not a last-minute, obviously election-related item. We're still the better part of a year away! The timing of this report should not enter into the discussion.

Critique the MESSAGE, not the MESSENGER! Talk about the report itself, not the motivation for it.

Re:Oh, boy!

[Blondie-Wan]

Except that similar discussions have previously emerged; this is just the latest.

Here [washingtonpost.com], for example, is an article from September of 2002 on the same thing. That was more than two years before this year's election. This isn't the first time this sort of thing has cropped up before, not by a long shot; it's not even the first time it's come up on Slashdot (see this [slashdot.org], or this [slashdot.org], or this [slashdot.org] (referring to the article I referenced above).

The Bush science advisors have great research!

[ScottGant]

Here's what they've found:

Oil slicks found to keep seals young, supple

They've found that Democrats cause cancer

Study: 92 percent of Democrats are gay

JFK posthumously joins Republican Party

(for those with no humor, this was all taken from an episode of The Simpsons. If you're offending in any way, I offer a complete and utter retraction. The imputation was totally without basis in fact, and was in no way fair comment, and was motivated purely by malice, and I deeply regret any distress that my comments may have caused you, or your family, and I hereby undertake not to repeat any such slander at any time in the future.)

Re:Oh, boy!

[Dr. Manhattan]

"[F]or a long time I bought into a common schema for the Bush administration: dim-bulb president surrounded and propped up by bright, ruthless neocons... I'm chagrined to admit now that I have, at least in part, bought into a lie... The neocons surrounding Bush are not all that bright." - Jon Carroll [commondreams.org]

Re:Oh, boy!

[BlewScreen]

I've always wanted to them to define the 'rich' and wealthiest...$200K/yr? $500K/yr?

HA! If only it were that HIGH... Fact is, many slashdot readers probably fit the definition...

From The Heritage Foundation [heritage.org]:

Like fairness, "rich" is a subjective term, but the most common definition of "rich" in Washington is someone in the top 20 percent (or quintile) of income. Many Americans in this quintile hardly would qualify as rich, though, since the cutoff in 1999 for the top 20 percent of tax returns is $79,375 of household income.

Keep in mind that that is HOUSEHOLD income...

-bs

Re:Oh, boy!

[Zeinfeld]

Let's put this in perspective, I paid $17,000 last year in federal income tax alone. All by myself. Even a 1% tax cut is $170 in my pocket, or about 15 bucks a month.

Cry me a river, Over the past four years I paid over half a million dollars in taxes. But I would rather see the tax cuts repealled and the economy doing better than continue with a stagnant economy and $50,000 off my taxes.

During the Clinton boom the economy grew 4% year on year, that means the economy grew by almost a fifth in each term. That means far more to me than any amount I might pay in taxes. During the Bush recession the economy was stagnant, there was one quarter where it grew by 2% (reported in the press as 8% anualized) and a second when it grew by 1% (reported in the press as 5% anualized). But we still havent had one year that comes close to matching the Clinton performance.

Sure Bush had some bad luck, but all President's do. Bush has made no good luck. That is the problem. He is also responsible for the bulk of the deficit, he has not vetoed a single one of the pork filled spending bills from the Republican Congress. He pushed through irresponsible tax cuts which in many cases will only start to take effect after the recession is over. That means that long term interest rates, the rates businesses borrow money at and the rates that determine economic growth are much too high. The markets know there is a big increase in borrowing comming.

The falloff of tax revenues and the $250 billion cost of the war in Iraq are part of the reason for the deficit, but they are not the biggest reason and they are not part of the forward planning estimates that are predicting $400 billion dollar deficits for the next ten years.

So no, a four year tax cut does not impress me in the slightest. It is clearly not going to last. Regardless of who is President next year taxes are going to return to their pre-Bush level and then some extra will be added on top. Read my lips, Tax rises are inevitable.

No politician deserves credit for tax cuts unless they can cut spending or raise revenues by enough to pay for them.

Re:USSR tried bad science, it failed...

[mikerich]

Back in the 1970's, there was a USSR scientist who had weird biological theories that really hindered work done in that country by real biologists..

You're thinking of Trofim Lysenko who wasn't a trained scientist, but his 'theories' seemed to fit in with Communist dogma - so he attracted the approval of Stalin. Lysenko got his ideas from a Russian form of Lamarckism known as Michurianism. Essentially it was the old falsehood that said such nonsense as the children of a giraffe have longer necks because their parents stretched to reach leaves on trees.

Lysenko came to prominence in 1948 when he declared Mendelist evolution to be reactionary, decadant and its proponents to be enemies of the Soviets. Other scientists knew what that meant and on whose behalf he was speaking (Uncle Joe) and quickly fell behind the Party line. He and his theories basically held sway in the Eastern Bloc until 1965 when Kruschev had Lysenko denounced and returned the Soviet Union to the orthodox view of evolution.

But of course Lysenko's theories were in sway during the pivotal discoveries of DNA and how it affected genetics. So the Soviet Union fell behind at a vital moment and never recovered.

It's an extreme form of the current situation in the US, where any old nonsense can be promoted by politicians to keep their vested interests (be they oil, lead or Christian fundamentalism) happy. Sadly the same is starting to happen over here in the UK, where our non-scientific Prime Minister refuses to condemn schools that teach creationism over evolution.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:USSR tried bad science, it failed...

[mikerich]

Evolution doesn't even follow the second law of thermodynamics.

Yes it does, unfortunately there is a fallacy regarding the second law of thermodynamics which is often used by creationists.

The second law of thermodynamics states that left to itself, the entropy (that is the amount of disorder) in a closed system can never decrease. Rooms get untidy, a cup of coffee cools down and heats the room and so on...

There are two important parts of the law that are forgotten by creationists:

1. That the system is left to itself, and;
2. That it is a closed system.

It means that you can tidy a disorganised house apparently in contravention of the second law of thermodynamics. All your shelves are neatly organised, the floor positively sparkles - order has been created from disorder. BUT to do that, you have had to use some energy and will have dumped unrecoverable heat into the wider environment.

Organisms are not closed systems, they are local pieces of order. They take in raw materials, use it to increase the amount of local order and dump heat energy into the wider environment.

The total amount of entropy in the Universe has increased, but locally it has decreased. The total amount of usable energy has decreased, the total amount of entropy has increased.

No contravention of the second law.

Best wishes,
Mike.

Re:Uhhh... OK.

[theghost]

For now, let's assume (wrong or wrong) that Gore is 100 times dumber than Bush. That still doesn't mean he would subvert science like Bush's administration has. Intelligent != ethical.

At any rate, Gore really has nothing to do with this. If you want to make a comparison that matters, tell me how Kerry, Edwards, or even Dean have been misused or suppressed science to further their political goals like Bush has.

Our alternative is not Gore because we can't go back and change the past. (No matter how much we want to.) Our alternatives are the guys that are going to be running in November, 2004.

Re:Independent?

[logophage]

funding? what are your sources? i've noticed that the cry of the pro-dubyas is that any disagreement with the dubya's policies must in fact be from liberal sources. there are many other non-liberal folks (such as libertarians) who disagree with dubya's policies. and, of course, there are apolitical groups who disagree as well. i know it's convenient to put these things in their box so you feel justified in ignoring them. but...let's call this rationalization a severe deficiency in logical thinking.

Lol, only 3 messages deep

[BoomerSooner]

And we're back to "terrorists". I hate to tell you this but spray-painting a car is vandalism, not terrorism. I disagree with their tactics, but in today's society I understand their futility in playing in a system where Bush has $120 Million already in campaign funds and they want what's right.

Follow the money and you'll find the root of all the problems in politics.

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[LarsWestergren]

Ten things you should know about Lomborg and the "Skeptical Environmentalist":
http://www.wri.org/press/mk_lo mborg_10_things.html

A summary of some of the more important points:

"the environmental issue facing society is not whether we are increasing our material wellbeing - we are - but whether we are prospering in ways that damage the natural environment. Lomborg's book equates -- and confuses -- these two fundamentally different issues."

"Lomborg claims that "marine productivity has almost doubled since 1970" -- a surprising statement given the well-documented declines of many commercial fish stocks. What Lomborg actually means appears later in the book as a figure depicting an increase in total fish catch, plus production from fish farms.[...] And what humans are taking from the oceans and what the oceans are producing are of course fundamentally different matters. "

"Although Lomborg concedes that species extinctions are likely occurring at 1,500 times natural rates[10], he takes repeated issue with an estimate by Norman Myers that as many as 40,000 species may be going extinct each year. But when annual species extinction is calculated with Lomborg's figure, using the number of living species Lomborg cites and the extinction-per-species ratios given by leading authorities in Lomborg's own footnotes, the Myers estimate is confirmed as sitting well within the range."

If you want more in-depth, there is a 64 page rebuttal
here [cornell.edu]

Re:Check out what else UCS has been up to

[El_Ehmenopio]

I'm am member of the union of concerned scientists. I'll admit this up front as so no not be confused with a trolling "Anonymous Coward". Please consider your sources before you dare post an article from a fringe group, like the "Heartland Institute" I will not bother to go into greta detail, 5 minutes of a google search will explain better than I can. why you are wrong about 1. The Heartland institute, a Conservative thinktank with ties to just about every pollution industry. 2. You can no concept of the UCS, and what we are about. I can remember the "Liberals" attacking us for beign conservative during the Clinton years. And now the "Conservatives" are attackign us. The fact is..... the UCS deals with facts. Researchers carefully document their data, and the data is not "smoothed" it is open for skeptical analysis, because IT IS SCIENCE. OH BTW, Longborgs math is wrong. Bad Statistical analysis is my pet peeve. This guy deserved a pie in his face just on that, let alone that he has sold himslef out to the highest bidder. People, the VAST majority of scientists and Climatologists believe that global warming is a real issue. The only reason these fringe groups have a voice is that they have big money to back them up. Look around for yourselves. And here.. read the crackpots too http://www.greeningearthsociety.org/ these nuts believe climate change is a good thing!

Re:Independent?

[drooling-dog]

Then why does so much of their funding come from opposition (liberal, democrat) linked sources?

Because if the Republicans had funded it, the conclusions would have been rewritten and the Nobel laureates on the panel replaced by industry lobbyists and political hacks.

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[markbark]

This was the same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84.

Yeah, all those "successful" SDI tests, right?

Now the problem becomes convincing any potential adversaries that they need to tell us when and where they plan to attack, and, oh yes.... would they mind terribly putting a radar beacon on any incoming warheads?

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[rump_carrot]

Dude

Are you serious? You really think Star Wars works? What are the "successful tests" you refer to - the ones where the missile had an attached radio beacon?

Jeesh, my guess is you are either not a scientist, or if so, work on an SDI related project.

Do you really trust "successful test results" from an admministration that showed us "conclusive evidence of Weapons of Mass Desctruction".

Re:a group with a history of mucking in politics

[frankie]

same group that said SDI wouldn't work back in '83-'84

Umm... in 1980s terms they were absolutely 100% correct. Reagan proposed SDI to protect the USA from an all-out Soviet bombardment. The UCS said blocking 1000ish missiles at the same time would be prohibitively expensive (maybe quadrillions of dollars) if not impossible.

20 years later, we've got preliminary testing of anti-missiles that might be able to knock out at most a dozen incoming warheads, in a narrow region of airspace. Not nearly the same thing.

bias doesn't make them wrong though...

[rbird76]

Bias helps to understand why someone takes a view and also what facts/theories/ideas they might be ignoring or not telling you about. It doesn't tell you what is right or wrong. While I have a bias against the Bush administration and their policy of allowing affected business to write their own regulations (e.g. Cheney and the secret meetings over energy policy), those businesses have knowledge that is useful to the process (they know things about their businesses and their process use that others wouldn't know) and should have input into what happens. The UCS has a bias as well, but they are made up of smart people who might also know something. The bias of these groups doesn't negate the validity of their arguments. Ultimately, the facts will out - the biases will explain why the UCS looked into these issues but do not deny the validity (or lack thereof) of their results.

Re:Data is always open to interpretation

[LostCluster]

But that's not exactly what this group is claiming. They're not questioning the final decisions the Bush Administration has made, but claiming that invalid science is being used to back up the decisions, essentially using bad science as a cover story because if they stated the real reason, it might not be accepted by the public as easily.

Re:Scientists have agendas too...

[TBone]

Agendas, like the full inculsion of scientific evidence as a basis for making policy decisions?

I mean, who really _cares_ what lead exposure does to kids when determining what the exposure guidelines should be. Or how many degrees an additional 50 million metric tons of CO2 makes the air emperature rise by. Yeah, those pesky Nobel and National Science Medal winning scientists, just trying to promote their agendas for personal gain.

Re:Global Warming, all the way

[uncadonna]

Thanks for the link to the 1975 Newsweek article. I read the article twice and didn't see any "alarmist environmentalism". I saw very tentative staements from the founders of a science that has made major progress in the intervening years.

Thirty years of satellite observations, computer advances and improvements in theory go into current thinking that didn't figure in 1975. That said, nothing I saw in the article seems particularly alarmist or ideological.

The period of concern over "global cooling" was brief and driven by intuition. Pretty much as soon as they started doing the numbers, most of the serious physicists who were to be the founders of physical climatology agreed that greenhouse warming was probably a bigger concern. See Science, vol 193 pp 447 ff, Aug 6, 1976 , pretty much right after the Newsweek article.