Scientist (including 20 Nobel Laureates) say BUSH admin distorting science
Seems that a large group of leading scientists, some of them important Ex-Republican Administration members, have finally written a public letter addressed to Bush.
In it they address the fact that Bush has systematically loaded scientific advisory panels, research groups and boards with corporate stooges and actual corporate members . . . he has even closed advisory panels if he disagreed with their science, and simply refused to accept findings of research organizations.
They took over a year to draft this letter ARTICLE HERE
There was a thread about this over two and half eyars ago when bush sacked a respected scientist on respected research advisory panel dealing with the environment (A Scientist, for criminees sake! not a partisan player at all!!) in favor of a corporate hand-picked and corporate ffriendly replacement!!!
Even a scientist from the Nixon and Reagan administration signed the letter.
There are two ways to look at this: one: Bush does not believe in Science, its a lie told by the Great Deceiver, two: Bush simply doesn't care about the future scientific, environmental, biological, nuclear etc., consequences of our actions.
Kudos to the AI member who can find the actual letter and link to it
In it they address the fact that Bush has systematically loaded scientific advisory panels, research groups and boards with corporate stooges and actual corporate members . . . he has even closed advisory panels if he disagreed with their science, and simply refused to accept findings of research organizations.
They took over a year to draft this letter ARTICLE HERE
There was a thread about this over two and half eyars ago when bush sacked a respected scientist on respected research advisory panel dealing with the environment (A Scientist, for criminees sake! not a partisan player at all!!) in favor of a corporate hand-picked and corporate ffriendly replacement!!!
Even a scientist from the Nixon and Reagan administration signed the letter.
There are two ways to look at this: one: Bush does not believe in Science, its a lie told by the Great Deceiver, two: Bush simply doesn't care about the future scientific, environmental, biological, nuclear etc., consequences of our actions.
Kudos to the AI member who can find the actual letter and link to it
Comments
Originally posted by Matsu
Here you go.
Nope
anyway,
from the NYTimes article about the letter we get teh re-assurances from teh administration that it isn't true:
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
comforting is it not?
http://www.sierraclub.org/forests/mo...lettertext.asp
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_securit...fm?pageID=1256
http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environ...fm?pageID=1272
http://www.commercialalert.org/index...article_id/213
I love this quote:
Bush Administration: ?the assertion that heavy marketing of energy-dense food or fast food outlets increases the risk of obesity is supported by almost no data. "
No comment necessary here.
TOPIC: People (not including a biased science group) say LIBERAL scientists are trying for more government funding from big-spender Dem's.
Originally posted by Jubelum
Maybe we need another thread-
TOPIC: People (not including a biased science group) say LIBERAL scientists are trying for more government funding from big-spender Dem's.
idiot!
you didn't even notice that a famous Reagan and Nixon administration member is a signatory
NOTICE THAT THEY ARE CONSERVATIVE PRESIDENTS!!!!
GET IT!?
SCIENCE . . . it is NON PARTISAN!
that is what is so terrible . . .
Originally posted by pfflam
SCIENCE . . . it is NON PARTISAN!
Number one- I did not attack you personally. I would appreciate you refraining from such a juvenille attack - "Idiot" ???
You are turning your own thread into a personal soapbox / flame war.
Science is non-partisan. It's interpretation is FAR FROM non-partisan.
That's all I'm saying. Science is neutral. It's use is by people, and sometimes people have agendas.
Come over here, and let's split a bottle of Scotch, and have a respectful debate, if you can handle that...
Yikes.
Considering the fat boom in this nation and how it will be a very important health and money issue in the future, I am amazed.
Bush has now distorted science. All I'm waiting for next is him to shave his head, lift his pinky to the corner of his mouth, and say "riiiiiight."
Is it really a surprise that scientific data might be distorted by a politician in order to further ones agenda? Any one of us can take the exact same information and each draw entirely separate conclusions based on what we perceive the data to show, or even want it to show.
Remember the whole "Dean coverage less favorable than other dems" garbage (this was prior to his Iowa incident, after which this certainly became the case)? Numbers can always be broken down to get desired results.
Honestly folks, can we just give AO a day or two to air out and lay off the bush bashing for a bit? We get it, lots of you don't support him... why the constant need to reinforce views?
And before we start with the "don't like it? don't read it" argument, these threads get constant attention and are continually bumped. So it's not possible to simply "avoid" them. Oh well. I'll assume not, so do as you will. Enjoy!
Originally posted by rageous
Honestly folks, can we just give AO a day or two to air out and lay off the bush bashing for a bit? We get it, lots of you don't support him... why the constant need to reinforce views?
Because he keeps doing new and stupid things. If he were doing good things and bad, we'd have two kinds of threads. Unfortunately he's mostly doing things that both conservatives and liberals consider damaging. If he's doing something positive, why don't those that support him start threads about these great topics?
Originally posted by rageous
Is it really a surprise that scientific data might be distorted by a politician in order to further ones agenda? Any one of us can take the exact same information and each draw entirely separate conclusions based on what we perceive the data to show, or even want it to show.
While I'm not going to claim that what you are saying is impossible, because I'm sure there are plenty of cases of inconclusive scientific results, but good science produces data that isn't as flexible as what you suggest. Results may have infinitely many interpretations, but few logically consistent ones, and even fewer that agree with other results. But I don't think you are trying to say that there are a bunch of good (as in logical and consistent) interpretations of any set of scientific data, but rather that data can be misrepresented to pursue one's own means. Agreed.
The accusations of these scientists are quite strong. They are claiming that Bush is not only misrepresenting science, but that he is stacking public scientific advisory boards with puppets. Their accusations may be politically motivated, but given the caliber of the people signing this letter I think it rather rash to dismiss them without thorough investigation. They could be making a justifiable accusation, in which case this issue demands the attention of the electorate.
Originally posted by rageous
Bush has now distorted science. All I'm waiting for next is him to shave his head, lift his pinky to the corner of his mouth, and say "riiiiiight."
Is it really a surprise that scientific data might be distorted by a politician in order to further ones agenda? Any one of us can take the exact same information and each draw entirely separate conclusions based on what we perceive the data to show, or even want it to show.
Remember the whole "Dean coverage less favorable than other dems" garbage (this was prior to his Iowa incident, after which this certainly became the case)? Numbers can always be broken down to get desired results.
Honestly folks, can we just give AO a day or two to air out and lay off the bush bashing for a bit? We get it, lots of you don't support him... why the constant need to reinforce views?
And before we start with the "don't like it? don't read it" argument, these threads get constant attention and are continually bumped. So it's not possible to simply "avoid" them. Oh well. I'll assume not, so do as you will. Enjoy!
I would say "don't like it don't read it" except that you apparently did not.
If you care to look you will see how the Bush admin has taken scientists out of key positions where they might make claims based on science and replaced them with figures, non-scientists, who are corporate-friendly
and, how he has simply refused the scientific perspective on issues if it did not fit his agenda
and even dissolved an entire panel of scientists
If I get hot under the collar, forgive me, I am a little pissed at tehe non stop debacle that this guy has been
and this is a serious matter with a long history (3 years) and lots of data
and then we get posts bout "Liberals" . . . and urinating
No body will address it from the Bush camp because it is indefensible . . .. wjen even known conservative scientists feel that they need to speak up something must be going on.
Quarem: I am right with you. I respect the opinion of the scientists, and am inclined to believe they are truthful and probably neutral. And I think they need to be taken seriously. In fact the point I was making is that most data can be spun to give virtually any conclusion one is seeking.
Side note: If science has taught us anything, it's that no matter how much we think we know, we'll always look back and see how little our scope of knowledge was.
So please don't assume because I express my lassitude concerning the constant anti bush threads means i disagree with the topic at hand. Because in this instance i am inclined to believe it, simply because this is the nature of politics of every kind.
Don't know what all the whining is about. This administration provides enough material to keep us busy with new threads.
Why is it that every time someone posts something potentially damaging to Bush, we get the same tired excuses: "it's a conspiracy"...."a pinko liberal"....the "liberal media"...."Bush bashing"or the "ultra liberal AO"(yeah, some genius actually said that).
It's not news that this administration has quite a disregard for the environment. The only way a Bush administration would do things to protect it would be if the huge corporations had a financial interest in doing so and donated the big $$$ a-la Enron, Bechtel, Halliburton.
Originally posted by rageous
bunge: actually I think there would be more threads supportive of Bush were it not for the very hostile nature of some of the detractors who visit AO. Bush supports are often personally attacked as being uneducated or blind. Yes yes, I know similar comments are shot in the opposing direction, but it's the frequency and consistency of the bush detractors behavior that is certainly unnerving to some and not something many who would otherwise post are interested in subjecting themselves to.
If it makes you feel any better, when I first showed up here at AO it was overrun with conservatives talking about killing the Palestinians. I stuck it out and I feel like I've helped things get a little better around here. I had to put up with tons of ridicule, and I still do get some. But if you're convinced, then a little ridicule shouldn't bother you.
Tell 'em all to **** off and keep fighting for what you believe in.
Originally posted by rageous
Bush supports are often personally attacked as being uneducated or blind.
The very next poster ...
Originally posted by Gilsch
For ONCE....take off your Republican at Any Cost? blinders and look at the facts.
... emphasis mine
Just something for the gang to mull over
Gilsch: I'm not republican.
However, when you look at the list of scientists and read some of the things they wrote, i would say this isn't the best thread to complain about biased left-wing propaganda. I mean it wasn't even a personal opinion of the poster, it was a simple news report about an outcry from the science world against some of the things that are going wrong. So maybe you should respect that or at least reply to the topic at hand, in stead of rejecting it as 'just another anti-Bush thread'. It's not very constructive, and given the source of the story, pretty cheap.