|
Banned
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dilbert1234567
Well lets here from one of the Greenpeace founders... (Bold added to important parts, I’d recommend reading the whole thing though)
|
Ch'i....it's gonna be alright. Ustwo, IMO, knows perfectly well, what he is doing. He takes the side of oil rich Oklahoma's senator, Inhofe, the man who's idealogical counterpart in the House, is aptly nicknamed, "Smokey Joe" Barton.
Ustwo advocated for men who have sold the quality of the air you bread, out of their own greed and hubris. I can have nothing but contempt, and a vigorous resolve to observe and counter this criminal cabal that assured me that the environment that I lived in, during late 2001, early 2002...three blocks from ground zero, in Manhattan, was non-toxic....when they knew fucking well...that the exact opposite was true. Shed not a moment of concern for them, Ch'i....it is not ignorance that they can trot out as an excuse. They know perfectly well what they are doing, and they revel in it!
Dilbert, I am surprised to see you post from that "side". Bush, Cheney, and Inhofe are "owned" by "big oil", and Ustwo is evidently compelled to post <a href="http://mediamatters.org/items/200607120007">Bozell's position, "du jour"</a>.....
Quote:
http://www.umass.edu/newsoffice/news...cles/36111.php
Report Affirms 'Hockey Stick' Climate Change Data; UMass Amherst Climate Scientist Comments
June 22, 2006
Contact: Raymond Bradley
413/545-2120
AMHERST, Mass. – A National Academy of Sciences report released today confirms that the last few decades of the 20th century were warmer than any comparable period in the last 400 years, affirming the findings of climate scientist Raymond Bradley of the University of Massachusetts Amherst and his colleagues. The report was requested by Congress last year to clarify research involving surface temperature reconstructions published by the scientists in the late 1990s. Bradley issued the following statement regarding the report:
“The National Academy of Sciences released their report today, on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years. This was requested by Rep. Sherwood Boehlert (R-NY) to clarify the controversy over the so-called “hockey stick” temperature reconstructions of the last 1,000 years by Michael Mann (Penn State University), Raymond Bradley (University of Massachusetts Amherst) and Malcolm Hughes (University of Arizona). These scientists concluded that the late 20th century warmth in the Northern Hemisphere was unprecedented during at least the last 1,000 years. <b>This drew the ire of Sen. James Inhofe (R-OK) and Rep. Joe Barton (R- Texas), who claimed the research was misleading,” Bradley says.</b>
“The NAS report concluded that the Mann et al study “has subsequently been supported by an array of evidence.” They find it plausible that “the northern hemisphere was warmer during the last few decades of the twentieth century than during any comparable period over the preceding millennium.” They note that confidence in the record decreases back in time, especially before A.D. 1600, in agreement with the original conclusions reached by the university researchers. The Academy panel also concluded: “Surface temperature reconstructions for periods prior to the industrial era are only one of multiple lines of evidence supporting the conclusion that climatic warming is occurring in response to human activities, and they are not the primary evidence,” says Bradley.....
|
Quote:
<b>How Bad is He?</b>
by Sidney Blumenthal
.......No other president has ever been hostile to science. Russell Train, the Environmental Protection Agency administrator under presidents Nixon and Ford, observed, "How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations."
Bush's opposition to stem cell research was just the beginning of his enmity toward science. The words "reproductive health" and "condoms" were forbidden from appearing on websites of agencies or organizations that received federal funds. At the Food and Drug Administration, staff scientists and two independent advisory panels were overruled in order to deny the public access to emergency contraception. At the Centers for Disease Control, scientifically false information was posted on its website to foster doubt about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing HIV/AIDS. At the President's Council on Bioethics, two scientists were fired for dissents based on scientific reasoning. At the National Cancer Institute, staff scientists were suppressed as the administration planted a story on its website falsely connecting breast cancer to abortion. The top climate scientist at NASA, James Hansen, longtime director of the agency's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, was ordered muzzled after he noted at a scientific conference the link between greenhouse gas emissions and climate change. The president also suggested that public schools should equally teach evolution, the basis of all biological science, and "Intelligent Design," a pseudo-scientific version of creationism. "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought," Bush said.
Bush's antipathy to science had an overlapping political appeal to both the religious right and industrial special interests. Scientific research was distorted and suppressed at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Department of Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The administration censored and misrepresented scientific reports on climate change, air pollution, endangered species, soil conservation, mercury emissions, and forests. Scientists were dismissed or rejected from numerous science advisory committees, from the Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel to the Army Science Board.
In February 2004, 60 of the nation's leading scientists, university presidents, medical experts, and former federal agency directors from both Democratic and Republican administrations, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement entitled "Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking." It declared: "The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education."
When Hurricane Katrina landed in August 2005 scientific reality and dysfunctional government collided. Bush had systematically distorted, suppressed and ignored evidence of global warming, which scientists believed was responsible for intensifying hurricanes. The director of the National Hurricane Center had briefed Bush on the devastating impact on New Orleans and the Gulf Coast of Katrina before it hit, but the president disregarded the advance warning. The Federal Emergency Management Agency, which under President Clinton had been one of the most efficient and effective, had become a morass of incompetence and political cronyism. Amid its abject failure, Bush praised its director Michael Brown, whose previous experience was as the head of the International Arabian Horse Association, as doing "a heck of a job." New Orleans, a major and unique American city, was destroyed. In the immediate aftermath of the storm, Bush traveled six times to the city, promising to rebuild it to its former glory, but most of the city lay in ruins a year later. In January 2006, Bush declared that he had received no rebuilding plan, apparently unaware that he had already rejected it. ......
|
Let's hear from 62 prominent scientists, including some nobel laureates:
Quote:
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...t.html?print=t
Union of Concerned Scientists
Citizens and Scientists for Environmental Solutions
www.ucsusa.org
statement
Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policymaking
————
On February 18, 2004, over 60 leading scientists–Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors, and university chairs and presidents–signed the statement below, voicing their concern over the misuse of science by the Bush administration. UCS is seeking the signatures of thousands of additional U.S. scientists in support of this effort.
————
Quote:
Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry; and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now, more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS research to genetic engineering to food additives, government relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
President George H.W. Bush, April 23, 1990
|
Successful application of science has played a large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the world’s most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences. Indeed, this principle has long been adhered to by presidents and administrations of both parties in forming and implementing policies. The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle.
When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. This has been done by placing people who are professionally unqualified or who have clear conflicts of interest in official posts and on scientific advisory committees; by disbanding existing advisory committees; by censoring and suppressing reports by the government’s own scientists; and by simply not seeking independent scientific advice. Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systematically nor on so wide a front. Furthermore, in advocating policies that are not scientifically sound, the administration has sometimes misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies.
For example, in support of the president’s decision to avoid regulating emissions that cause climate change, the administration has consistently misrepresented the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, government scientists, and the expert community at large. Thus in June 2003, the White House demanded extensive changes in the treatment of climate change in a major report by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). To avoid issuing a scientifically indefensible report, EPA officials eviscerated the discussion of climate change and its consequences.
The administration also suppressed a study by the EPA that found that a bipartisan Senate clean air proposal would yield greater health benefits than the administration’s proposed Clear Skies Act, which the administration is portraying as an improvement of the existing Clean Air Act. “Clear Skies” would, however, be less effective in cleaning up the nation’s air and reducing mercury contamination of fish than proper enforcement of the existing Clean Air Act.
Misrepresenting and suppressing scientific knowledge for political purposes can have serious consequences. Had Richard Nixon also based his decisions on such calculations he would not have supported the Clean Air Act of 1970, which in the following 20 years prevented more than 200,000 premature deaths and millions of cases of respiratory and cardiovascular disease. Similarly, George H.W. Bush would not have supported the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990 and additional benefits of comparable proportions would have been lost.
The behavior of the White House on these issues is part of a pattern that has led Russell Train, the EPA administrator under Presidents Nixon and Ford, to observe, “How radically we have moved away from regulation based on independent findings and professional analysis of scientific, health and economic data by the responsible agency to regulation controlled by the White House and driven primarily by political considerations.”
Across a broad range of policy areas, the administration has undermined the quality and independence of the scientific advisory system and the morale of the government’s outstanding scientific personnel:
*
Highly qualified scientists have been dropped from advisory committees dealing with childhood lead poisoning, environmental and reproductive health, and drug abuse, while individuals associated with or working for industries subject to regulation have been appointed to these bodies.
*
Censorship and political oversight of government scientists is not restricted to the EPA, but has also occurred at the Departments of Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior, when scientific findings are in conflict with the administration’s policies or with the views of its political supporters.
*
The administration is supporting revisions to the Endangered Species Act that would greatly constrain scientific input into the process of identifying endangered species and critical habitats for their protection.
*
Existing scientific advisory committees to the Department of Energy on nuclear weapons, and to the State Department on arms control, have been disbanded.
*
In making the invalid claim that Iraq had sought to acquire aluminum tubes for uranium enrichment centrifuges, the administration disregarded the contrary assessment by experts at Livermore, Los Alamos and Oak Ridge National Laboratories.
The distortion of scientific knowledge for partisan political ends must cease if the public is to be properly informed about issues central to its well being, and the nation is to benefit fully from its heavy investment in scientific research and education. To elevate the ethic that governs the relationship between science and government, Congress and the Executive should establish legislation and regulations that would:
*
Forbid censorship of scientific studies unless there is a reasonable national security concern;
*
Require all scientists on scientific advisory panels to meet high professional standards; and
*
Ensure public access to government studies and the findings of scientific advisory panels.
To maintain public trust in the credibility of the scientific, engineering and medical professions, and to restore scientific integrity in the formation and implementation of public policy, we call on our colleagues to:
*
Sign the statement today—click here.
Bring the current situation to public attention;
* Request that the government return to the ethic and code of conduct which once fostered independent and objective scientific input into policy formation; and
* Advocate legislative, regulatory and administrative reforms that would ensure the acquisition and dissemination of independent and objective scientific analysis and advice.
See a list of prominent signatories.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_int...gnatories.html
Quote:
http://go.ucsusa.org/RSI_list/index.php
Signers of the scientists' statement on scientific integrity include 49 Nobel laureates, 63 National Medal of Science recipients, and 175 members of the National Academies. See the entire list of signers, here.
Note: Italicized names are those of the original signers of the statement
National Medal of Science *
Nobel Laureate †
Crafoord Prize #
The National Academies ^
|
|
....and, in the last 24 hours:
Quote:
<div class="post">
<h2 class="date">September 27, 2006</h2> <h3 id="post-8580"><a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8580.html" rel="bookmark" title="Permanent Link to Bush administration muzzles scientists — Part MMCXVIII">Bush administration muzzles scientists — Part MMCXVIII</a></h3>
<div class="posted">Posted 9:42 am <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/wp-print.php?p=8580"> | Printer Friendly | </a> <script src="http://feeds.feedburner.com/~s/TheCarpetbaggerReport?i=http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/8580.html" type="text/javascript" charset="utf-8"></script></div>
<div class="entry">
<p>The Bush gang? Blocking a scientific report they don't like? <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-09-26-hurricane-report_x.htm">You don't say</a>.</p>
<blockquote><p>The Bush administration has blocked release of a report that suggests global warming is contributing to the frequency and strength of hurricanes, the journal Nature reported Tuesday.</p>
<p>The possibility that warming conditions may cause storms to become stronger has generated debate among climate and weather experts, particularly in the wake of the Hurricane Katrina disaster.</p>
<p>In the new case, Nature said weather experts at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration — part of the Commerce Department — in February set up a seven-member panel to prepare a consensus report on the views of agency scientists about global warming and hurricanes.</p>
<p>According to Nature, a draft of the statement said that warming may be having an effect.</p></blockquote>
<p>It was then, of course, that political appointees intervened. A Commerce official emailed panel chair Ants Leetmaa explaining that the report was not to be released.</p>
<p>Sen. Frank R. Lautenberg (D-N.J.), charged that "the administration has effectively declared war on science and truth to advance its anti-environment agenda … the Bush administration continues to censor scientists who have documented the current impacts of global warming."</p>
<p>If only this were the first time.<br />
<a id="more-8580"></a><br />
Let's not forget, for example, that James Hansen, the longtime director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has spoken out repeatedly, explaining to anyone who will listen that Bush administration officials have <a href="http://www.thecarpetbaggerreport.com/archives/6474.html">tried to censor</a> scientific information about global warming.</p>
<p>Indeed, NOAA itself has had <a href="http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040502150.html">repeated problems</a> similar to this one.</p>
<blockquote><p>Scientists doing climate research for the federal government say the Bush administration has made it hard for them to speak forthrightly to the public about global warming. The result, the researchers say, is a danger that Americans are not getting the full story on how the climate is changing.</p>
<p>Employees and contractors working for the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, along with a U.S. Geological Survey scientist working at an NOAA lab, said in interviews that over the past year administration officials have chastised them for speaking on policy questions; removed references to global warming from their reports, news releases and conference Web sites; investigated news leaks; and sometimes urged them to stop speaking to the media altogether.</p></blockquote>
<p>For example, Christopher Milly, a hydrologist at the U.S. Geological Survey, said he had trouble writing a press release on how climate change would affect the nation's water supply without running into trouble from officials at the Interior Department. In 2002, Milly was told that his release would cause "great problems with the department." A few years later, officials allowed Milly to issue a statement on his research, but only after certain key words — "global warming," "warming climate," and "climate change" — were removed.</p>
<p>Scientists at NOAA's Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory told the WaPo they've had so many problems getting clearance to speak with journalists, a lot of reporters have just stopped asking, leading to a public that only has "a partial sense" of what government scientists have learned about climate change.</p>
<p>One of them said, "American taxpayers are paying the bill, and they have a right to know what we're doing."</p>
<p>There goes the reality-based community again, forgetting how the rules are different in Bush's America….
</p>
|
et tu, Dilbert1234567.....why?
Last edited by host; 09-27-2006 at 11:33 AM..
|