|
Banned
|
Global Warming: Congressmen Without Faith in the Competition of Ideas
Joe Barton (R-TX) has obviously not heard of Stalin's favorite scientist, "Comrade" Lysenko, or of the parachutists !
Are ignorance, ambition, greed, and lobbysists, destined to destroy the U.S.?
Add'l comments added, 6:00 am EDT July 17, 2005:
IMO, the Bush administration has engaged in unprecedented (in size, scope, detail, news coverage, publicly reported reaction from scientists employed by federal and state gov. agencies) politicization of scientific research, environmental regulation, regulation of food and drugs, and agriculture, just to name some of the prominently reported areas and incidents. The common theme of this disturbing trend, is transfering the priorities and primary mission of government regulatory agencies from policies that err on the side of caution in the protection of the American public and the environment, including management of parks, recreation,wilderness areas, and water resources, to policies that emphasize "self-regulation" by the businesses themselves, that exhibited the documented record of abuses and damagesto the environment, food and drug products, public forest, water, and park land resources, that necessitated the creation of the regulatory agencies, and the scientists that are employed or receive grants to study and advise political appointees who manage these agencies, and the politicians who appoint them. Another disturbing new trend is the interference of a religious minority ,encouraged by political appointees of the current administration, documented in previous threads here attempting to challenge the scientific body of knowledge in the areas of geology and earth science, specifically in instructional and educational materials in our national parks, with materials interpreted from passages from American Protestant Christian bibles.
Some examples:
Quote:
http://www.peer.org/news/news_id.php?row_id=549
SURVEY CREATES CONTROVERSY INSIDE NOAA FISHERIES SERVICE — Director Hogarth Regards Survey Results as Personal Attack
Washington, D.C. — Dr. William Hogarth, Director of the National Oceanic & Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Service, communicated to all agency employees his concerns over a report showing political interference with scientific decision-making at NOAA. Director Hogarth sent two emails in reaction to the negative attention generated by the public release of a questionnaire administered to NOAA Fisheries scientists working in field and regional offices by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER) and the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS)......
........... The survey of more than 460 NOAA Fisheries scientists, which received a response of 27%, showed agency science is suffering under political manipulation and inappropriate influence of special interests. More than half of all respondents (53%) were aware of cases in which “commercial interests have inappropriately induced the reversal or withdrawal of NOAA Fisheries scientific conclusions or decisions through political intervention,” and only one-quarter of the respondents said they “trust NOAA Fisheries decision makers to make decisions that will protect marine resources and ecosystems.”
In its response to both Hogarth messages, PEER expresses its concern that Hogarth set out to explain away the disturbing reports of political interference as the inability of agency scientists to fully appreciate the non-scientific factors in decision-making. This argument fails to show that scientific decisions at the agency are safe from inappropriate influences and criticizes highly trained professional staff in the process.
|
Some examples: <a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record&general_topic_areas=bush_env_globalWarming">Global Warming</a>
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record&general_topic_areas=bush_env_wildlifeProtection">Wildlife
Protection</a>
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=the_bush_administration_s_environmental_record&corporate_interests=bush_env_timberIndustry">Timber Industry</a>
<a href="http://www.cooperativeresearch.org/project.jsp?project=bush_enviro_record">Bush Administration's Environmental Record (123 Items)</a>
For Republicans, it was not always "this way":
Quote:
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache...nvironment.ap/
Nixon EPA chief criticizes Bush
Tuesday, July 20, 2004 Posted: 11:40 AM EDT (1540 GMT)
Former EPA head Russell E. Train says President Bush has weakened the Clean Air Act.
CONCORD, New Hampshire (AP) -- The head of the Environmental Protection Agency for two Republican presidents criticized President Bush's record on Monday, calling it a "polluter protection" policy.
"It's almost as if the motto of the administration in power today in Washington is not environmental protection, but polluter protection," Train said. "I find this deeply disturbing."
In 1988, Train was co-chairman of Conservationists for Bush, an organization that backed the candidacy of George W. Bush's father.
Train spoke at an event organized by Environment2004, which opposes Bush's environmental record.
He accused Bush of weakening the Clean Air Act and said the president's record falls short of those set by former Republican presidents, from Theodore Roosevelt, who advocated creating national parks and forests, to George H.W. Bush, who supported revised standards for clean air.........
|
IMO, this guy is a "malignancy", with regard to his representation of the "interests" of the American public:
Quote:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...2005Apr13.html
Rep. Barton Faces Energy Challenge
New Panel Chairman and Industry Ally Will Be Man Behind Major Legislation
By Thomas B. Edsall and Justin Blum
Washington Post Staff Writers
Thursday, April 14, 2005; Page A25
Rep. Joe Barton (R-Tex.) has evolved over the past 20 years from a maverick conservative willing to cast lonely, defiant votes into a central political figure who cuts deals and raises millions of dollars for his colleagues and who marshaled a small army of lobbyists to secure for himself a powerful chairmanship.
Now head of the Energy and Commerce Committee, with jurisdiction over more than half the legislation that moves through Congress, Barton last week began what could be one of the most difficult and important tasks facing the 109th Congress: drafting and passing major energy legislation after years of failed efforts.......
......Barton's key hires since taking the chairmanship are likely to further secure his ties to the energy industry and to the House leadership.
Barton picked C.H. "Bud" Albright, chief lobbyist for Reliant Energy Inc., a Houston electricity producer, to be the committee's chief of staff. Reliant has contributed more than $160,000 to House Majority Leader Tom DeLay (R-Tex.) and his leadership political action committees, and gave $50,000 to the Roy B Fund run by Majority Whip Roy Blunt (R-Mo.).
Albright hired Margaret Caravelli, a lobbyist for producers of MTBE (methyl tertiary butyl ether), a gasoline additive that is the subject of groundwater-pollution litigation nationwide. Barton and DeLay have been the leading defenders of MTBE producers, insisting they be protected from product-defect lawsuits. Kurt Bilas, former senior counsel at Reliant Energy, has been hired as a committee counsel.
Barton and President Bush share the same pro-business agenda and market-based philosophy. The two have championed tax incentives for the oil and gas industry, and both are advocates of drilling in the Alaska refuge.
The two Texans also have dipped heavily into the same rich pool of campaign contributions from corporate and trade associations, according to a review of campaign finance and lobbying records.
Since 1997, oil, gas, electricity, nuclear, coal and chemical companies have contributed $1.84 million to Barton, more than to any other House member. In the 2000 and 2004 elections, these same energy interests gave Bush $9.2 million, more than to any other presidential candidate.
The top source of energy money for both men -- $103,390 to Barton, $172,922 to Bush -- has been the PAC and employees of Southern Co., the electric utility serving Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi and Florida.
As committee chairman, Barton will be central to the success of energy legislation as well as other Bush administration legislative initiatives.
The panel has the authority to arbitrate the major battles between polluters and environmentalists, between cable companies and broadcasters, and between drug companies and consumer groups. The committee oversees anti-terrorist security at nuclear plants and port facilities and is responsible for rewriting the 1996 Telecommunications Act. It is responsible for protecting Internet users from identity theft as well as for dealing with the nation's nuclear waste, and determining whether tough "decency" standards should be applied to broadcast and cable television.
The scope of the committee's jurisdiction has turned members into magnets for campaign contributions from every Washington interest from the AT&T Corp. PAC to the Wal-Mart Stores Inc. PAC.
In his quest for the chairmanship, which began in earnest in mid-2003 when Tauzin first signaled his retirement, Barton, a calculating poker player, funneled more than $6 million in campaign contributions to his House colleagues and the National Republican Congressional Committee for the upcoming congressional elections. Barton was host of a $5 million-plus event for the NRCC in March 2003, gave the committee an additional $290,000, made contributions ranging from $500 to $10,000 to 82 House Republicans, and served as the main draw for lobbyists at numerous fundraisers held by junior GOP members.
A network of former Barton staff members-turned-lobbyists -- including Jeffery M. MacKinnon (clients: Reliant Energy, Philip Morris, MCI and at least 36 others), Stephen Sayle (American Chemical Council, AT&T and 19 others) and Stephen Waguespack (Duke Energy, Ford Motor Co. and eight others) -- worked the crucial corporate and trade association community on Barton's behalf.
Perhaps Barton's most telling attribute is an unwavering support for many big energy interests.......
|
Quote:
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...View/sid/9042/
Saturday, July 16, 2005 :: infoZine Staff
Leading Climate Scientists Question Rep. Barton's Inquiry
Focus on Single Global Warming Study Called Puzzling
Science & TechnologyWashington, D.C. - infoZine - Twenty leading climate scientists - including Nobel and National Medal of Science laureates, members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, and other highly regarded researchers - sent a letter to Congress expressing concern over the approach of a Congressional investigation into a global warming study. Rep. Joe Barton (R-TX), in his capacity as the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is conducting the investigation.............
.........On June 23, 2005, Rep. Barton and Rep. Ed Whitfield, chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigation, sent a letter to Drs. Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes questioning the data, methodology, and results of a specific study of historical temperature that has come to be known as the "Hockey Stick" study for its findings of rapid twentieth century warming.
|
Quote:
http://www.sovlit.com/bios/dudintsev.html
"White Robes" (Beliye Odezhdi) was published in 1987, at the height of perestroika. Set in the late 1940s, it tells the story of some scientists who, despite Lysenko's denunciation of genetics as the "whore child of imperialism", secretly carry on research in the field. The hero of this novel, Dezhkin, is, according to Dudintsev, "an agent of good sent into the camp of evil with the assignment of defeating them." His fight is clandestine, unlike that of Lopatkin, the hero of "Not By Bread Alone", who fought openly. The author explained the difference this way:
Years had passed between the writing of these two novels. And I understood that for the Lopatkins to win, they must become Dezhkins. That is, in a definite social situation, those people pursuing a socially significant goal require not only courage, but also the ability to correctly and sensibly carry on the battle. If Dezhkin spoke out publically in defense of the scientific discovery, the repressive machine, having gathered momentum, would simply smash him. If I had portrayed such a hero as overcoming the system, his victory would appear false and programmed by the will of the writer's mind, not dictated by genuine reality.
"White Robes" also contains the idea of "parachutists", described by Dudintsev this way:
<h4>People thrown from the destroyed world into the conditions of Soviet reality. Entrepreneurs and egoists in their souls, they looked around and saw that here, too, it was possible to live if they accepted the new "rules of the game". And hiding their true nature they began to shout along with everyone else, "Long live the world revolution!" Masking their insincerity, they shouted louder and more expressively than others so that they quickly rose to the top, occupied leading posts and began to struggle for their own personal, comfortable lifestyle.</h4>
According to Dudintsev, this is why gray-haired academics supported Lysenko and gave the leadership the needed "scientific" conclusions; and this is why, says Dudintsev, "ministers built not what was needed by the people, but that which did not contradict their personal interests." To Dudintsev it is obvious that the ecological disasters around the Aral Sea, the Volga, and Lake Ladoga are the work of the "parachutists"........
|
Quote:
http://www.time.com/time/time100/sci...r/unsung3.html
Trofim D. Lysenko
He was Joseph Stalin's favorite scientist, and it's easy to see why. Lysenko was a peasant-born agronomist and Marxist ideologue who rejected Mendel's ideas because they contradicted the doctrine of dialectical materialism. He offered instead to solve the Soviet Union's chronic crop failures through a process he called vernalization, by which he would "train" spring wheat to be winter wheat and thus increase the number of annual harvests. Lysenko believed all living organisms passed on to succeeding generations characteristics acquired in their lifetime. This untested theory was at odds with what Lysenko scathingly called "alien bourgeois" genetics, but Soviet scientists who dared disagree risked being sent to the gulag. The cost was high. Even after Lysenko's final fall at the end of the Khrushchev era, Soviet agriculture continued to suffer. Worse still, Soviet scientists missed out on the genetics revolution. To this day, Russian biology lags behind that of the West, thanks to Comrade Lysenko.
|
Quote:
http://www.infozine.com/news/stories...View/sid/9041/
Nobel and National Medal of Science Laureates, Researchers and Members of the U.S. National Academy of Sciences and the Intergovernmental Pa
Dear Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield,
Science & TechnologyThe Honorable Joe Barton, Chairman
Committee on Energy and Commerce
The Honorable Ed Whitfield, Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
2125 Rayburn House Office Building
U.S. House of Representatives
Washington, DC 20515
Friday, July 15, 2005
Dear Chairman Barton and Chairman Whitfield,
As scientists with expertise relevant to the understanding of Earth's changing climate, we are writing to help inform the inquiry you are conducting on the work of Drs. Michael Mann, Ray Bradley, and Malcolm Hughes. We understand that as a representative of the American people, you have a responsibility to inform yourself and your colleagues about scientific knowledge that is relevant to policy decisions. However, we are deeply concerned about your approach and we respectfully submit the following clarifying context.
In your letters of June 23, 2005, to these scientists, you state, "We open this review because this dispute surrounding your studies bears directly on important questions about the federally funded work upon which climate studies rely." In fact, the specific findings of Mann et al. constitute only one item among literally thousands of pieces of evidence that have contributed to the present consensus on the serious nature of climate change. While the 2001 report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) highlighted this work as a useful illustration of our understanding of the impact of fossil fuel-related emissions on climate change, in no way does the report suggest that it is an essential element of that understanding. This understanding has been developed over many years from many diverse lines of inquiry.
There are legitimate areas of scientific debate over the best methodologies to apply in reconstructing historic temperatures, as there are in many topics of current scientific interest. However, the essential points of the Mann et al. study.that the late twentieth century likely included the warmest decades in the last millennium.are supported by numerous other studies. We refer the committee to the full reports by the IPCC, the 2001 review of the Third Assessment report by the U.S. National Academy of Sciences, and the June 7 statement from the NAS and other leading science academies for balanced assessments of the current state of the science.
We also note that much of the information that you have requested from the scientists involved is unrelated to the stated purpose of your investigation. Requests to provide all working materials related to hundreds of publications stretching back decades can be seen as intimidation.intentional or not.and thereby risks compromising the independence of scientific opinion that is vital to the preeminence of American science as well as to the flow of objective advice to the government.........
|
Content and comments below this line was also added 6:00 am July 17, 2005
In a letter from Joe Barton to Dr. Michael Mann, Asst. Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia, date June 23, 2005, The following material and answers are requested (demanded) by July 11, 2005 !
Quote:
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...62305_Mann.pdf
http://energycommerce.house.gov/108/...32005_1570.htm
http://www.usnews.com/usnews/culture.../14climate.htm
..........To assist us as we begin this review, and pursuant to Rules X and XI of the U.S. House of
Representatives, please provide the following information requested below on or before July 11,
2005:
1. Your curriculum vitae, including, but not limited to, a list of all studies relating to climate
change research for which you were an author or co-author and the source of funding for
those studies.
2. List all financial support you have received related to your research, including, but not
limited to, all private, state, and federal assistance, grants, contracts (including subgrants
or subcontracts), or other financial awards or honoraria.
3. Regarding all such work involving federal grants or funding support under which you
were a recipient of funding or principal investigator, provide all agreements relating to
those underlying grants or funding, including, but not limited to, any provisions,
adjustments, or exceptions made in the agreements relating to the dissemination and
sharing of research results.
4. Provide the location of all data archives relating to each published study for which you
were an author or co-author and indicate: (a) whether this information contains all the
specific data you used and calculations your performed, including such supporting
documentation as computer source code, validation information, and other ancillary
Dr. Michael Mann
Page 3
information, necessary for full evaluation and application of the data, particularly for
another party to replicate your research results; (b) when this information was available to
researchers; (c) where and when you first identified the location of this information; (d)
what modifications, if any, you have made to this information since publication of the
respective study; and (e) if necessary information is not fully available, provide a detailed
narrative description of the steps somebody must take to acquire the necessary information
to replicate your study results or assess the quality of the proxy data you used.
5. According to The Wall Street Journal, you have declined to release the exact computer
code you used to generate your results. (a) Is this correct? (b) What policy on sharing
research and methods do you follow? (c) What is the source of that policy? (d) Provide
this exact computer code used to generate your results.
6. Regarding study data and related information that is not publicly archived, what requests
have you or your co-authors received for data relating to the climate change studies, what
was your response, and why?
7. The authors McIntyre and McKitrick (Energy & Environment, Vol. 16, No. 1, 2005)
report a number of errors and omissions in Mann et. al., 1998. Provide a detailed
narrative explanation of these alleged errors and how these may affect the underlying
conclusions of the work, including, but not limited to answers to the following questions:
a. Did you run calculations without the bristlecone pine series referenced in the
article and, if so, what was the result?
b. Did you or your co-authors calculate temperature reconstructions using the
referenced “archived Gaspe tree ring data,” and what were the results?
c. Did you calculate the R2 statistic for the temperature reconstruction, particularly
for the 15th Century proxy record calculations and what were the results?
d. What validation statistics did you calculate for the reconstruction prior to 1820,
and what were the results?
e. How did you choose particular proxies and proxy series?
8. Explain in detail your work for and on behalf of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change, including, but not limited to: (a) your role in the Third Assessment Report; (b)
the process for review of studies and other information, including the dates of key
meetings, upon which you worked during the TAR writing and review process; (c) the
steps taken by you, reviewers, and lead authors to ensure the data underlying the studies
forming the basis for key findings of the report were sound and accurate; (d) requests you
received for revisions to your written contribution; and (e) the identity of the people who
wrote and reviewed the historical temperature-record portions of the report, particularly
Section 2.3, “Is the Recent Warming Unusual?”
Dr. Michael Mann
Page 4
Thank you for your assistance. If you have any questions, please contact Peter Spencer of
the Majority Committee staff at (202) 226-2424.
Sincerely,
Joe Barton Ed Whitfield
Chairman Chairman
Subcommittee on Oversight
and Investigations
cc: The Honorable John Dingell, Ranking Member
The Honorable Bart Stupak, Ranking Member,
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations
|
To wrap this up....note the length and breadth of the items/answers that Barton requests on behalf of his "congressional committee investigation", of Dr. Michael Mann, with just 18 days notice.
If congressional committee chairmen showed this aggressive pursuit of knowledge towards the Bush administration concerning the change in assessment of Iraq's WMD programs, compared to what Powell and Rice on record telling the media pre 9/11, compared to the change in rhetoric before the invasion of Iraq, or to Diebold, concerning the propietary computer code that company uses in it's "receiptless" electronic voting systems that were being funded and promoted to cities and counties by a Bush politcal appointee in 2003, how would the world be different today?
In view of Joe Barton's resume, former Republican EPA admin. Russell Train's comments, the links to documentation of the Bush admin. regulatory record, the pressure (harrassment?) being brought to bear on scientists,(and science), and the prospect of a minimum of three more years of the Bush administration, and an indeterminant length of the rein of committee chairman, Joe Barton, convince me that I've made the case for a comparison of the history of the effects of extreme political interference on scientists in Soviet Russia, with today's trend in America. Too extreme ? Re-read Joe Barton's "resume" and compare it to his current committee's responsibilities and influence, and then peruse the 123 examples of the first four years of Bush admin. regulatory influence and control, and maybe my comparison will seem more apt.
Last edited by host; 07-17-2005 at 02:59 AM..
|