Censoring Science? - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

Rekna · 12-16-2006, 11:05 AM

http://www.livescience.com/forcesofn...screening.html

Quote:

White House Tightens Publishing Rules for USGS Scientists
By John Heilprin
Associated Press
posted: 14 December 2006
10:37 am ET

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Bush administration is clamping down on scientists at the U.S. Geological Survey, who study everything from caribou mating to global warming, subjecting them to controls on research that might go against official policy.

New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.

Top officials at the Interior Department's scientific arm say the rules only standardize what scientists must do to ensure the quality of their work and give a heads-up to the agency's public relations staff.

“This is not about stifling or suppressing our science, or politicizing our science in any way,'' Barbara Wainman, the agency's director of communications, said Wednesday. “I don't have approval authority. What it was designed to do is to improve our product flow.''

Some agency scientists, who until now have felt free from any political interference, worry that the objectivity of their work could be compromised.

“I feel as though we've got someone looking over our shoulder at every damn thing we do. And to me that's a very scary thing. I worry that it borders on censorship,'' said Jim Estes, an internationally recognized marine biologist who works for the geological unit. “The explanation was that this was intended to ensure the highest possible quality research,'' said Estes, a researcher at the agency for more than 30 years. “But to me it feels like they're doing this to keep us under their thumbs. It seems like they're afraid of science. Our findings could be embarrassing to the administration.''

The new requirements state that the USGS's communications office must be “alerted about information products containing high-visibility topics or topics of a policy-sensitive nature.''

The agency's director, Mark Myers, and its communications office also must be told — prior to any submission for publication — “of findings or data that may be especially newsworthy, have an impact on government policy, or contradict previous public understanding to ensure that proper officials are notified and that communication strategies are developed.''

Patrick Leahy, USGS's head of geology and its acting director until September, said Wednesday that the new procedures would improve scientists' accountability and “harmonize'' the review process. He said they are intended to maintain scientists' neutrality.

“Our scientific staff is second to none,'' he said. “This notion of scientific gotcha is something we do not want to participate in. That does not mean to avoid contentious issues.''

The changes amount to an overhaul of commonly accepted procedures for all scientists, not just those in government, based on anonymous peer reviews. In that process, scientists critique each other's findings to determine whether they deserve to be published.

From now on, USGS supervisors will demand to see the comments of outside peer reviewers' as well any exchanges between the scientists who are seeking to publish their findings and the reviewers.

The Bush administration, as well as the Clinton administration before it, has been criticized over scientific integrity issues. In 2002, the USGS was forced to reverse course after warning that oil and gas drilling in Alaska's Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would harm the Porcupine caribou herd. One week later a new report followed, this time saying the caribou would not be affected.

This seems to be something very bad and reminiscent of 1984. If science comes out that contradicts the governments policy they want to know about it and perhaps censor it. In this case what good is hiding the truth from the people? This is America, this is a country built on the foundations of speaking the truth, upholding justice, and providing freedom to all of its citizens. Now we are lieing to the citizens, circumventing justice, and taking away freedoms. It is tying that we take this country back from those that hate what America stands for. To me Bush seems like one of the most unamerican people I have ever seen. I really hopy Nacy Pelosi reconsiders her "no impeachment phase" to "no impeachment unless we find justified reason to impeach him". To bad we can't have recall elections for the presidency's in this country.

Rekna · 12-18-2006, 09:38 AM

Am I the only one who is concerned with the government making our scientists run their findings by them before the results can be published? Or is it the weekend/Christmas lull?

reconmike · 12-18-2006, 09:53 AM

If these scientists have a problem with how their employer dictates how information is released, I am sure they can go to work in the private sector and get a job studying the banging habits of the caribou.

dc_dux · 12-18-2006, 10:20 AM

Henry Waxman, as ranking Dem on the House Govt Reform Committee focused a great deal of attention on how the Bush admin manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. A 2003 report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including: :

• Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven “abstinence-only” programs appear effective;

• Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC’s web site;

• Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed;

• Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed;
and

• Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were
withheld.

Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women’s health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park.

Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis.

The 2003 report is here and more recent news of how the Bush administration treats government scientists and scientific findings is here.

Unfortunately Waxman was blocked repeatedly by the Repub majority on the Govt Reform Committee from conducting any serious or credible hearings on any of these findings.

BUT, that will change in 2007 and we can expect the Bush administration to called before the Committee to explain their past actions and current policies.

kutulu · 12-18-2006, 10:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

If these scientists have a problem with how their employer dictates how information is released, I am sure they can go to work in the private sector and get a job studying the banging habits of the caribou.

Well we made it to the second reply....

Honestly, if these scientists weren't arab loving commies this wouldn't be a problem

aceventura3 · 12-18-2006, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

... and more recent news of how the Bush administration treats government scientists and scientific findings is here.
[/INDENT]Unfortunately Waxman was blocked repeatedly by the Repub majority on the Govt Reform Committee from conducting any serious or credible hearings on any of these findings.

BUT, that will change in 2007 and we can expect the Bush administration to called before the Committee to explain their past actions and current policies.

I went to the website and looked at the first item listed. Waxman points to this memo:

http://www.democrats.reform.house.go...4822-87686.pdf

The authors of the memo simply question the methology used to generate the "hokey stick" temprature graph that showed 900 years of flat global tempratures followed by a spike in the last two decades. Exxon Mobil (a private organization) provided funding to the organization who published the memo. It appears Waxman was concerned more about Exxon Mobil providing funds to the organization than the question presented in the memo. Perhaps Waxman is making a political issue out of the matter and not Bush (given Bush had nothing to do with the memo).

But perhaps the UN is making a political statement also, here what one of their reports stated:

Quote:

Apocalypse Cow

INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY

Posted 12/15/2006

Climate Change: A U.N. report indicates that a major contributor to global warming may be the barnyard animals your kids see at the petting zoo, not the SUV you used to drive them there.

Just when conventional wisdom had settled on your SUV and the Industrial Revolution as the culprits in imminent and disastrous global warming, a 400-page report by the U.N.'s Food and Agricultural Organization identifies emissions from livestock and the world's rapidly growing cattle herds as the greatest contributors to climate change.

So as the justices of the U.S. Supreme Court ponder whether to force the Environmental Protection Agency to treat life-sustaining carbon dioxide as a "pollutant," and in so doing impose job- and growth-killing regulations on the American economy, U.N. scientists say a goodly percentage of greenhouse gases emanate from the east end of westbound livestock.

Titled "Livestock's Long Shadow," the FAO report also surveys damage done by sheep, chickens, pigs and goats. But it mostly puts the blame on the world's 1.5 billion cows. Altogether, the report says, flatulent livestock and farming are the source of 18% of the greenhouse gases said to cause global warming — more than cars, planes and all other forms of transport put together.

The report has created quite a stink by documenting the impact on Earth's climate by gases from manure and flatulence, deforestation (including destruction of rain forests to create grazing land) and the energy used in farming.

"Livestock are one of the most significant contributors to today's most serious environmental problems. Urgent action is required to remedy the situation," said the report's senior author, Henning Steinfeld.

The FAO has projected a doubling of global meat production by 2050, with a corresponding impact on climate.

Steinfeld, chief of FAO's livestock information and policy branch, stated: "When emissions from land use and land-use change are included, the livestock sector accounts for 9% of CO2 deriving from human-related activities, but produces a much larger share of even more harmful greenhouse gases."

While producing a relatively small portion of carbon dioxide, livestock produce 65% of nitrous oxide emissions, which have 296 times the "global warming potential" of CO2, Steinfeld said. "Most of this comes from manure."

North America alone has more than 100 million cattle, hundreds of millions of hogs and pigs, and more than 2 billion chickens, all emitting billions of tons of greenhouses gases each year. And not one comes equipped with a catalytic converter.

Now, we're as skeptical about cattle's dooming the planet as we are about the Ford Expedition's being a mortal threat. But the U.N. said cows and other critters produce methane — lots of it — and each molecule of methane has 21 times as much warming impact as a molecule of carbon dioxide, according to those who figure such things.

The FAO says livestock emit 35% to 40% of the methane put into the atmosphere. One cow produces half a pound a day. Multiply that by 1.5 billion gas-producing cows, and you don't feel so bad about driving your Hummer.

The U.N. may have stumbled on some more inconvenient truths. We just hope Al Gore doesn't have a cow.

http://www.investors.com/editorial/e...0882260&view=1

We have created quite a stink

Rekna · 12-18-2006, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by reconmike

If these scientists have a problem with how their employer dictates how information is released, I am sure they can go to work in the private sector and get a job studying the banging habits of the caribou.

If these people worked for a private company i'd agree but they work for the government who is supposed to work for the people.

The government is using the tax payers money to do science and then if the science doesn't say what they want they push it under a rug. I'm sorry but the government owes us the truth when it is our money being used to find the truth.

dc_dux · 12-18-2006, 02:07 PM

Ace...your editorial does exactly what the Bush administration does.....taking scientific findings out of context. Did you even bother to read the UN report or just the biased editorial?

There is no reason to start another global warming debate here. It was just one example of how the Bush administration "chooses" its science.

But I am looking foward to Congress holding the Bush administration accountable to explain how they have or have not systematically distorted and suppressed scientific information to support an ideological agenda.

aceventura3 · 12-18-2006, 02:51 PM

I did not read the UN report, I wasn't aware of it until I read the editorial. I only brought it up because I dislike the UN and many posters here who believe the globe is warming likes the UN. I agree it is not wise to start a global warming debate, and I admit that I don't have a handle on the issue on way or the other. I was not trying to make a point about global warming, but it seems that if there is a study or evidence that supports global warming in general and secondarily points to the US as the major contributor, it is recieved with acceptance often without question. On the otherhand if one of those studies is questioned or if there is a study that does not support global warming it is received as political, false or simply dismissed.

Regarding Waxman, it seems to me his position is more about being anti-Exxon Mobil than it was about the sceintific issue in question. If a scientist questions the results of another scientist, the scientific community should resolve the dispute, who cares who provided who funding? Well it does matter if you want to score political points against the most profitable company in the world. So, I see Waxman as politicizing the issue.

Thank you for providing the links, they were informative.

dc_dux · 12-18-2006, 03:11 PM

Quote:

If a scientist questions the results of another scientist, the scientific community should resolve the dispute, who cares who provided who funding? Well it does matter if you want to score political points against the most profitable company in the world. So, I see Waxman as politicizing the issue.

I agree that the debate should be between scientists, but there is no reason why that debate cant occur in a political forum (ie Congressional hearing).The problem exposed in the OP is that it is not the scientific community, but policy wonks (political appointees) in the EPA, NOAA, USGS, FDA, Fish/Wildlife Service, etc. who are allegedly "editing" or suppressing government studies by career scientists that do not support the Bush ideological agenda.

I dont see holding hearings, which the Repubs were reluctant to do, as "politicizing" the issue. That is the oversight role of Congress. (Sen. Imhofe - "there will never be hearings on global warming as long as I am around...")

BTW, Waxman first made his reputation 20+ years ago by being one of the few members of Congress willing to take on the tobacco industry. A bad thing to do? Politicizing the dangers of smoking by exposing the blatant lies and cover-ups of the industry? link

eribrav · 12-18-2006, 04:38 PM

The Bush Administration views the "reality based" community with disdain.

They routinely ignore even the obvious facts in front of them ("Heckuva job Brownie") ring a bell?

Why are you at all surprised that they only want to hear science that fits their view of the world?

aceventura3 · 12-18-2006, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

BTW, Waxman first made his reputation 20+ years ago by being one of the few members of Congress willing to take on the tobacco industry. A bad thing to do? Politicizing the dangers of smoking by exposing the blatant lies and cover-ups of the industry? link

On the surface Congress taking on the tabacco industry appears to be a net positive for society, I think it has been a net negative and those hearings were a bit late, weren't they? Smoking was already on the decline and smokers were aware of the dangers of smoking. They first started putting warning labels on cigerette packs in 1965 those hearings I thought were in the 90's, but even if they were in the 80's they were still late. Seeing the tabacco companies CEO say nicotine was not addictive was good theater but the issue was not in question at the time of the hearings. In my view this was an attempt at political grand-standing by congress. Another recent example were the baseball steroid hearings.

What can I say if people think Bush and the Republicans are the only people who will attempt to use data to promote their cause.

It is interesting, but a difference between conservatives and liberals is that perhaps as a conservative I assume people will do what they think is in their best interest, liberals seem to be surprised by this and further assume people who believe as they do would never manipulate data to prove a point or be self-serving. To that I say - mmmm?!?

dc_dux · 12-18-2006, 07:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

....

What can I say if people think Bush and the Republicans are the only people who will attempt to use data to promote their cause.

It is interesting, but a difference between conservatives and liberals is that perhaps as a conservative I assume people will do what they think is in their best interest, liberals seem to be surprised by this and further assume people who believe as they do would never manipulate data to prove a point or be self-serving. To that I say - mmmm?!?

Ace...I dont think anyone here suggested that Bush and the Repubs are the only people who attempt to use data to promote their cause. But they are (were) the ones who set policy in both the White House and Congress for the last six years and are the ones who should be held accountable if scientific studies were manipulated or suppressed for political purposes.

IMO, you have done exactly what you have accused others of (in another political thread):

Your words: "I have also noticed that when some are proven wrong or challenged directly they tend to ignore those points and back off, often picking something trivial to respond to. I often find it all amusing."

You ignored and backed-off my response to your more salient point that the scientific community should evaluate scientific findings:

My words: I agree that the debate should be between scientists, but there is no reason why that debate cant occur in a political forum (ie Congressional hearing).The problem exposed in the OP is that it is not the scientific community, but policy wonks (political appointees) in the EPA, NOAA, USGS, FDA, Fish/Wildlife Service, etc. who are allegedly "editing" or suppressing government studies by career scientists that do not support the Bush ideological agenda.

....and responded to the less relevant (trivial) background I added about Waxman and the tobacco industry...along with vague generalizations about conservatives and liberals.

I find it amusing as well

aceventura3 · 12-19-2006, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

IMO, you have done exactly what you have accused others of (in another political thread):

Your words: "I have also noticed that when some are proven wrong or challenged directly they tend to ignore those points and back off, often picking something trivial to respond to. I often find it all amusing."

You ignored and backed-off my response to your more salient point that the scientific community should evaluate scientific findings:

My words: I agree that the debate should be between scientists, but there is no reason why that debate cant occur in a political forum (ie Congressional hearing).The problem exposed in the OP is that it is not the scientific community, but policy wonks (political appointees) in the EPA, NOAA, USGS, FDA, Fish/Wildlife Service, etc. who are allegedly "editing" or suppressing government studies by career scientists that do not support the Bush ideological agenda.

....and responded to the less relevant (trivial) background I added about Waxman and the tobacco industry...along with vague generalizations about conservatives and liberals.

I thought my position was clear. I am not surprised when this or any administration edits or surppresses information inconsistent with their preconcieved view. I did not dipute the point in the OP. However, I did add that Bush and the Republican party are not the only ones doing what they were accused of. I also think most people are smartenough to know the difference between real science and opinion. I think the hypocracy is a bigger problem. I don't think people should pretend to care about gobal warming Monday through Friday and then take a private jet to the lake on Saturday and ride around in their power boat.

dc_dux · 12-19-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I thought my position was clear. I am not surprised when this or any administration edits or surppresses information inconsistent with their preconcieved view. I did not dipute the point in the OP. However, I did add that Bush and the Republican party are not the only ones doing what they were accused of. I also think most people are smartenough to know the difference between real science and opinion. I think the hypocracy is a bigger problem. I don't think people should pretend to care about gobal warming Monday through Friday and then take a private jet to the lake on Saturday and ride around in their power boat.

I have a hard time understanding what your example of hypocracy (people pretending to care.....taking a private jet) has to do with the manipulation of government science studies by non-scientist political appointees.

The hypocracy I see is a party that conducted dozens of oversight hearings of the previous administration, with hundreds of subpoenas of, and testimony by, administration witnesses (i.e.e political appointees) AND yet has refused for the last six years to conduct any meaningful public hearings on the actions of the current administration and blocked every attempt by the minorty party to have such hearings.

In any case, Waxman will conduct hearings on the alleged manipulation and suppression of government scientific studies (among other issues). If the hearings are perceived as "politicizing" the issue(s), as you seem to infer, then the public may hold that against the Dems in the next election. If the hearings produce findings that the Bush administration acted unethically or illegally, then perhaps the public will hold the Repubs accountable.

It comes down to you notion of "politicization" and mine of Congress fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.

pig · 12-19-2006, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

I also think most people are smart enough to know the difference between real science and opinion.

i quickly interject here to say ace, i assume that you making this statement in jest? its not always a question of the ability of our population to detect truth in scientific statements, its the deliberate attempt to make pseudo-scientific statements sound as though they carry more weight than they do. what, praytell, are the magic words that give way to obvious political hack jobs versus scientific results, when the name of the organization making the study (usually a political think tank) sounds official, the study makes a lot of claims with numbers and percentages, and you're not reading the entire study or familiar with the field? its difficult for scientists to do this internally, which is why we have field-specific peer-review systems. i really don't see how the general public can be expected to.

as to the op, i think the tendency of any powerful group (in this case, our government and the career politicians who inhabit it) is to cherry-pick information sources that further their agenda. on this general point, i agree with you ace. however, from what i can see - the current administration is awful at it. furthermore, it fits with what i perceive to be a pattern of deception out of these guys that is having devastating consequences.

in particular, i find this site to be interesting : union of concerned scientists. i think they were brought up in a previous thread concerning global warming specifically, but that's not the only area they deal with:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Union of Concerned Scientists : 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.
————

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.

-----snip-----

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.

aceventura3 · 12-19-2006, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pigglet

i quickly interject here to say ace, i assume that you making this statement in jest?

Not at all. Take smoking for example - people knew and know smoking is unhealthy, however they choose to smoke. that choice had nothing to do with claims by the tabacco industry when they attempted to contradict the real science. There will always be some people who will believe "you can lose 30 pounds in 30 days with this pill", but most people know the truth.

Quote:

its not always a question of the ability of our population to detect truth in scientific statements, its the deliberate attempt to make pseudo-scientific statements sound as though they carry more weight than they do. what, praytell, are the magic words that give way to obvious political hack jobs versus scientific results, when the name of the organization making the study (usually a political think tank) sounds official, the study makes a lot of claims with numbers and percentages, and you're not reading the entire study or familiar with the field? its difficult for scientists to do this internally, which is why we have field-specific peer-review systems. i really don't see how the general public can be expected to.

It is very rare that people actually change their behavior because of pseudo-scientific statements. You can take global warming as a perfect example, even assuming it a scientific truth, those who believe the globe is warming have not changed their behavior and the odds are that they regularly consume on a net basis more fossil fuel today than they did 10 years ago. I would be interested in knowing how Gore has changed his behavior.

Quote:

as to the op, i think the tendency of any powerful group (in this case, our government and the career politicians who inhabit it) is to cherry-pick information sources that further their agenda. on this general point, i agree with you ace. however, from what i can see - the current administration is awful at it.

Perhaps you mean they are not as deceptive about it as other administrations have been. Bush has an "in your face" approach. I like that. It is clear and he has no hidden agenda.

Who is at fault if people blindly buy into what Bush says when they normally would disagree? Not Bush in my opinion. For example, everyone knew Bush wanted to invade Iraq. He presented his case with his data. Congress and the UN authorized the use of force, then they were surprised that he used force????? Perhaps those members of congress needed to call timeout and realize that they needed to take a closer look at the data, since it was that data that caused them to vote as they did. In reality I think they are using the data that was proved wrong as an excuse for their lack of conviction.

Another example creation vs. evolution. The religious right simply wants their view of creation presented in schools, that is their goal, it is not a scientific debate to them, it about faith and spreading their faith. The religious right knows that, but their opponents argue science trying to prove them wrong when in reality the two sides are not even discussing the same question. So if Bush says there are holes in the theory of evolution or emphasizes that it is "just a theory", and scientists get their panties in a bunch, perhaps they should count to ten, relax and simply say scientific theory has a place in public schools, teaching religious faith does not.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

I have a hard time understanding what your example of hypocracy (people pretending to care.....taking a private jet) has to do with the manipulation of government science studies by non-scientist political appointees.

If you believe the science regarding global warming as an example why would you continue contributing to the problem? If the problem is with the consumption of fossil fuels, why use fossil fuel for recreation.

Quote:

The hypocracy I see is a party that conducted dozens of oversight hearings of the previous administration, with hundreds of subpoenas of, and testimony by, administration witnesses (i.e.e political appointees) AND yet has refused for the last six years to conduct any meaningful public hearings on the actions of the current administration and blocked every attempt by the minorty party to have such hearings.

I agree with you. Personally I thought the way the Republican controlled conress handled the Clinton administration was shameful. I changed to the Libertarian party during that time. However, I think there is a level of "tit for tat" in politics. I accept that as a reality.

Quote:

In any case, Waxman will conduct hearings on the alleged manipulation and suppression of government scientific studies (among other issues). If the hearings are perceived as "politicizing" the issue(s), as you seem to infer, then the public may hold that against the Dems in the next election. If the hearings produce findings that the Bush administration acted unethically or illegally, then perhaps the public will hold the Repubs accountable.

It comes down to you notion of "politicization" and mine of Congress fulfilling its oversight responsibilities.

I guess there is a fine line between fulfilling oversight responsibilities and politicizing. We will see what happens, my bet is they are going to politicize issues inspite of saying they won't. That is hypocracy. If they simply said we are going to "rack Bush and the Republican party over the coals" for what they believed are deceptive practices, I would respect that, but don't try to make me believe the hearings are for some other grand purpose.

aberkok · 12-19-2006, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aceventura3

So if Bush says there are holes in the theory of evolution or emphasizes that it is "just a theory", and scientists get their panties in a bunch, perhaps they should count to ten, relax and simply say scientific theory has a place in public schools, teaching religious faith does not.

Ummm....they've been saying that for years, Ace. Problem is, it's not relaxing to see education reform which begins to include untruths.

From John Rennie's "15 answers to creationist nonsense:"

Quote:

Creationists retort that a closed-minded scientific community rejects their evidence. Yet according to the editors of Nature, Science and other leading journals, few antievolution manuscripts are even submitted. Some antievolution authors have published papers in serious journals. Those papers, however, rarely attack evolution directly or advance creationist arguments; at best, they identify certain evolutionary problems as unsolved and difficult (which no one disputes). In short, creationists are not giving the scientific world good reason to take them seriously.

The scientific community has dismissed creationism as a valid teaching tool. Their "panties are in a bunch" because they don't want lies in the education system. Here's one of many other statements along those lines:

National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush
Aug 3 2005

Quote:

August 3, 2005, Arlington, VA - The National Science Teachers Association (NSTA), the world's largest organization of science educators, is stunned and disappointed that President Bush is endorsing the teaching of intelligent design - effectively opening the door for nonscientific ideas to be taught in the nation's K-12 science classrooms.

"We stand with the nation's leading scientific organizations and scientists, including Dr. John Marburger, the president's top science advisor, in stating that intelligent design is not science. Intelligent design has no place in the science classroom," said Gerry Wheeler, NSTA Executive Director.

Monday, Knight Ridder news service reported that the President favors the teaching of intelligent design so "so people can understand what the debate is about."

"It is simply not fair to present pseudoscience to students in the science classroom," said NSTA President Mike Padilla. "Nonscientific viewpoints have little value in increasing students' knowledge of the natural world."

NSTA strongly supports the premise that evolution is a major unifying concept in science and should be included in the K-12 education frameworks and curricula. This position is consistent with that of the National Academies, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, and many other scientific and educational organizations.

The Arlington, VA-based National Science Teachers Association is the largest professional organization in the world promoting excellence and innovation in science teaching and learning for all. NSTA's current membership includes more than 55,000 science teachers, science supervisors, administrators, scientists, business and industry representatives, and others involved in science education.

dc_dux · 12-19-2006, 11:57 AM

Ace..your "inconvenient truth" (?) about the Iraq resolution and creation/evolution once again avoids the issue presented in the OP and the subsequent evidence from the House Committee Dem report and the Union of Concerned Scientists of manipulation and suppression of scientific studies by the executive branch of the government.

What do you suggest be done about it?

Accept it, because you like Bush's "in your face" approach and others in the past did it also, but more "deceptively"?

Investigate it through the proper channel envisioned in the Constitution (see the separation of powers and the role of Congress)?

Or perhaps, you have another solution?

Quote:

I guess there is a fine line between fulfilling oversight responsibilities and politicizing. We will see what happens, my bet is they are going to politicize issues inspite of saying they won't. That is hypocracy. If they simply said we are going to "rack Bush and the Republican party over the coals" for what they believed are deceptive practices, I would respect that, but don't try to make me believe the hearings are for some other grand purpose.

I would suggest the politicization and hypocracy regarding scientific findings and research is not limited to a Dem Congressional investigation....it has been going on for the last six years at unprecedented levels by the Bush administration and a subservient Congress. (as the UCS noted).

Of course, any hearing by a Dem Congress will be politicized to some extent. That is the nature of politics...just as the actions by the outgoing Congress have been.

aceventura3 · 12-19-2006, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Ace..your "inconvenient truth" (?) about the Iraq resolution and creation/evolution once again avoids the issue presented in the OP and the subsequent evidence from the House Committee Dem report and the Union of Concerned Scientists of manipulation and suppression of scientific studies by the executive branch of the government.

What do you suggest done about it?

Nothing.

Quote:

Accept it, because you like Bush's "in your face" approach and others in the past did it also, but more "deceptively"?

Yes.

Quote:

Investigate it through the proper channel envisioned in the Constitution (see the separation of powers and the role of Congress)?

Or perhaps, you have another solution?

There is nothing to investigate.

People in general and legislators in paticular need to do their homework before not after making policy decisions. If a policy maker believes the globe is warming they should act accordingly. If prosective policy makers beleive the globe is warming they should run on that platform, presenting their plan. People are smart enough to make informed choices.

dc_dux · 12-19-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

There is nothing to investigate.

Wow...that says it all. Thanks for your honesty and the clarity of your opinion.

aceventura3 · 12-19-2006, 12:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

Ummm....they've been saying that for years, Ace. Problem is, it's not relaxing to see education reform which begins to include untruths.

From John Rennie's "15 answers to creationist nonsense:"

The scientific community has dismissed creationism as a valid teaching tool. Their "panties are in a bunch" because they don't want lies in the education system. Here's one of many other statements along those lines:

National Science Teachers Association Disappointed About Intelligent Design Comments Made by President Bush
Aug 3 2005

I am not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with my point, but one thing is clear - creationist are clearly fogging up the issue, which is exactly what they want. For the record I think science should be taught in schools and faith be taught at home.

Quote:

Originally Posted by dc_dux

Wow...that says it all. Thanks for your honesty and the clarity of your opinion.

You say that in a way that makes me think there is a hidden message. To be clear, Bush is not hidding anything, so what are you wanting to investigate?

12-18-2006, 09:53 AM	#3 (permalink)
reconmike Thank You Jesus Location: Twilight Zone	If these scientists have a problem with how their employer dictates how information is released, I am sure they can go to work in the private sector and get a job studying the banging habits of the caribou. __________________ Where is Darwin when ya need him?

12-18-2006, 10:20 AM	#4 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Henry Waxman, as ranking Dem on the House Govt Reform Committee focused a great deal of attention on how the Bush admin manipulated the scientific process and distorted or suppressed scientific findings. A 2003 report identifies over twenty scientific issues affected by the undermining of science, including: : • Abstinence education, where performance measures were changed to make unproven “abstinence-only” programs appear effective; • Condom use, where information about condom use and efficacy was deleted from CDC’s web site; • Global warming, where reports by the Environmental Protection Agency on the risks of climate change were suppressed; • Missile defense, where Defense Department officials presented misleading information on whether a functional system could be quickly deployed; and • Wetlands policy, where comments from scientists at the Fish and Wildlife Service on the destructive impacts of proposed regulatory changes were withheld. Other affected topics include HIV/AIDS, agricultural pollution, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, environmental health, lead poisoning, oil and gas exploration, prescription drug advertising, stem cells, substance abuse, drinking water, women’s health, workplace safety, and Yellowstone National Park. Across this wide range of issues, the report identifies the three principal ways in which the Bush Administration has pursued its agenda: by manipulating scientific advisory committees, by distorting and suppressing scientific information, and by interfering with scientific research and analysis. The 2003 report is here and more recent news of how the Bush administration treats government scientists and scientific findings is here. Unfortunately Waxman was blocked repeatedly by the Repub majority on the Govt Reform Committee from conducting any serious or credible hearings on any of these findings. BUT, that will change in 2007 and we can expect the Bush administration to called before the Committee to explain their past actions and current policies. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire Last edited by dc_dux; 12-18-2006 at 10:25 AM..

12-18-2006, 02:07 PM	#8 (permalink)
dc_dux Location: Washington DC	Ace...your editorial does exactly what the Bush administration does.....taking scientific findings out of context. Did you even bother to read the UN report or just the biased editorial? There is no reason to start another global warming debate here. It was just one example of how the Bush administration "chooses" its science. But I am looking foward to Congress holding the Bush administration accountable to explain how they have or have not systematically distorted and suppressed scientific information to support an ideological agenda. __________________ "The perfect is the enemy of the good." ~ Voltaire

12-18-2006, 02:51 PM	#9 (permalink)
aceventura3 Junkie Location: Ventura County	I did not read the UN report, I wasn't aware of it until I read the editorial. I only brought it up because I dislike the UN and many posters here who believe the globe is warming likes the UN. I agree it is not wise to start a global warming debate, and I admit that I don't have a handle on the issue on way or the other. I was not trying to make a point about global warming, but it seems that if there is a study or evidence that supports global warming in general and secondarily points to the US as the major contributor, it is recieved with acceptance often without question. On the otherhand if one of those studies is questioned or if there is a study that does not support global warming it is received as political, false or simply dismissed. Regarding Waxman, it seems to me his position is more about being anti-Exxon Mobil than it was about the sceintific issue in question. If a scientist questions the results of another scientist, the scientific community should resolve the dispute, who cares who provided who funding? Well it does matter if you want to score political points against the most profitable company in the world. So, I see Waxman as politicizing the issue. Thank you for providing the links, they were informative. __________________ "Democracy is two wolves and a sheep voting on lunch." "It is useless for the sheep to pass resolutions on vegetarianism while the wolf is of a different opinion." "If you live among wolves you have to act like one." "A lady screams at the mouse but smiles at the wolf. A gentleman is a wolf who sends flowers."

12-18-2006, 09:38 AM	#2 (permalink)
Rekna Junkie	Am I the only one who is concerned with the government making our scientists run their findings by them before the results can be published? Or is it the weekend/Christmas lull?

12-18-2006, 04:38 PM	#11 (permalink)
eribrav Junkie Location: upstate NY	The Bush Administration views the "reality based" community with disdain. They routinely ignore even the obvious facts in front of them ("Heckuva job Brownie") ring a bell? Why are you at all surprised that they only want to hear science that fits their view of the world?