Scientists Say Bush Administration Distorts Facts

[JackSpratts]

James Glanz

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but not so systemically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the scientists said, adding that they believed the administration had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the implications of its policies."

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke during the conference call, said the administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with spirit of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried, who is also chairman of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the administration had a "cavalier attitude towards science" that could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and military prowess.

Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush and director of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, said it was important to listen to "the distinguished scientific leadership in this country." But he said the report consisted of a largely disconnected list of events that did not make the case for a suppression of good scientific advice by the administration.

"I think there are incidents where people have got their feathers ruffled," Dr. Marburger said. "But I don't think they add up to a big pattern of disrespect."

"In most cases," he added, "these are not profound actions that were taken as the result of a policy. They are individual actions that are part of the normal processes within the agencies."

The science adviser to Mr. Bush's father, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, went further. "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically motivated statement," said Dr. Bromley, a physicist at Yale. "The statements that are there are broad sweeping generalizations for which there is very little detailed backup."

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape. The report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare, much longer than originally planned, and was released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who spoke during the call and served as administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. "If it becomes that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan issue."

The letter was signed by luminaries from an array of disciplines. Among the Nobel winners are David Baltimore and Harold Varmus, both biomedical researchers, and Leon M. Lederman, Norman F. Ramsey and Steven Weinberg, who are physicists. The full list of signatories and the union's report can be found at www.ucsusa.org.

Aside from some new interviews with current and former government scientists, some identified in the report and others quoted anonymously, most of the information in the documents had been reported previously by a variety of major newspapers, magazines, scientific journals and nongovernmental organizations.

According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.

The report asserts that the administration also allowed industries with conflicts of interest to influence technical advisory committees, disbanded for political reasons one panel on arms control and subjected other prospective members of scientific panels to political litmus tests.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/19RESE.html

[theknife]

the policy decisions that come out of this administration invariably favor either a key campaign donor or a core constituent group. there's nothing new about that - every administration does it, to some degree. but in the 25 years or so that i've been paying attention to these things, never has it been so blatant.

the article illustrates a fundamental dishonesty to the Bush administration that has always disturbed me. i could deal with Clinton's lies, coz the stuff he lied about was petty bullshit that didn't affect me. but with the current administration, the doublespeak is about real issues that will affect us all for years....such as weakening environmental regulations, stifling genetic research, fudging the cost of policies (like Iraq and the prescription drug bill), allowing for record government expansion and ballooning deficits, trampling state's rights (in Oregon and California, for example), and most troubling, systematically dismantling transparency in government.

i said it in the Kerry thread and i'll say it here: when i look at the record, issue by issue, it is clear to me that the the country needs a change of direction.

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page report detailing its accusations.

the ultra left-wing activist UCS group accuses the bush administration of distorting facts? lol...shocking news!

"Confused Scientists."
— S. Fred Singer, George Mason University professor and president of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, in The Washington Times, August 11, 2000

"Aptly named because they can find concerns about anything."
— Bruce Boller, Virginia Military Institute Department of Physics and Astronomy, The Washington Times, July 7, 2002

"The Union of Perturbed Scientists."
— Syndicated columnist Jonah Goldberg, March 9, 1999

"By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong."


A few examples:

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

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

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

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

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

To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone.

UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again."

http://www.activistcash.com/org_blackeye.cfm?ORG_ID=145


now, check out one of UCS's top funders...lol.

http://www.activistcash.com/donor_de...m?DONOR_ID=357

[scooobiedooobie]

more on the heinz/kerry "union of concerned scientists" association...


HEINZ CENTER NAMES MELILLO, RIS TRUSTEES

"The Heinz Center announced that Jerry M. Melillo and Howard Ris have been elected to its Board of Trustees."


"Mr. Ris is president of the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), where he oversees all the organization’s work on environmental and security issues. He has been with UCS since 1981, serving as executive director from 1984 to 2001 and as director of UCS’s Nuclear Arms Control Program from 1981 to 1984. Mr. Ris is a member of the Environmental Business Council of New England and was a founding member of the Professionals’ Coalition for Nuclear Arms Control and the International Network of Engineers and Scientists for Global Responsibility."

http://www.prweb.com/releases/2003/8/prweb74516.htm



and, more on the heinz/kerry "tides foundation" association....

"Teresa Heinz Kerry has financed the secretive Tides Foundation to the tune of more than $4 million over the years. The Tides Foundation, a "charity" established in 1976 by antiwar leftist activist Drummond Pike, distributes millions of dollars in grants every year to political organizations advocating far-Left causes.

The Tides Foundation and its closely allied Tides Center, which was spun off from the Foundation in 1996 but run by Drummond Pike, distributed nearly $66 million in grants in 2002 alone. In all, Tides has distributed more than $300 million for the Left. These funds went to rabid antiwar demonstrators, anti-trade demonstrators, domestic Islamist organizations, pro-terrorists legal groups, environmentalists, abortion partisans, extremist homosexual activists and open borders advocates.

During the years 1995-2001, the Howard Heinz Endowment, which Heinz Kerry chairs, gave Tides more than $4.3 million. The combined Heinz Endowments (composed of the Howard Heinz Endowment and the Vira I. Heinz Endowment) donated $1.6 million to establish the Tides Center for Western Pennsylvania, a Pittsburgh office of the San Francisco-based Tides Center. Since that time, the local branch has tirelessly pushed an anti-business agenda in the name of "preserving the environment." However, it is the Tides Foundation's national organization whose connections are most disconcerting.

The Tides Foundation is a major source of revenue for some of the most extreme groups on the Left. Tides allows donors to anonymously contribute money to a host of causes; the donor simply makes the check out to Tides and instructs the Foundation where to forward the money. Tides does so, for a nominal fee. Drummond Pike told The Chronicle of Philanthropy, "Anonymity is very important to most of the people we work with." That becomes understandable when one views the list of Tides grant recipients. And who are the beneficiaries of this money?"

Immediately after 9/11, Tides formed a "9/11 Fund" to advocate a "peaceful national response" to the opening salvos of war. Part of the half-million dollars in grants the 9/11 Fund dispersed went to the New York Gay and Lesbian Anti-Violence Project to protect the rights of homosexual Arabs.

The Foundation replaced the 9/11 Fund with the "Democratic Justice Fund," which was established with the aid of George Soros' Open Society Institute. (Currency speculator and pro-drug advocate Soros is, like Teresa Heinz Kerry, a major contributor to Tides, having donated more than $7 million.) The Democratic Justice Fund seeks to ease restrictions on Muslim immigration to the United States, particularly from countries designated by the State Department as "terrorist nations."

Tides has also given grant money to the Council for American Islamic Relations. Ostensibly a "Muslim civil rights group," CAIR is in fact one of the leading anti-anti-terrorism organizations within the Wahhabi Lobby, with links to Hamas. CAIR regularly opposes and demonizes American efforts to fight terrorism, claiming, for instance, that Homeland Security measures are responsible for an undocumented surge in "hate crimes."

Senator John F. Kerry has gone far with his nuanced view of Operation Iraqi Freedom. He voted for the war resolution but specified a litany of conditions the Bush administration must meet before he would support combat, then proceeded to vote against funding troops already in harm's way - then claimed he had always supported the president when Saddam Hussein was captured. The grant recipients of the Tides Foundation, to which Kerry's wife has steered more than $4 billion in "charitable" funds, understand no such nuance.

Tides established the Iraq Peace Fund and the Peace Strategies Fund to fund the anti-war movement. These projects fueled such hysterical protest organizations as MoveOn.org, the website that recently featured two separate commercials portraying George W. Bush as Adolf Hitler. (Howard Dean, not Kerry, won MoveOn.org's "virtual primary.")

http://www.undueinfluence.com/heinz.htm

[Drakonix]

I think it would be fair to compare the record of G. W. Bush, Jr. to his predecessor in office.

Wanna talk about William Jefferson Clinton's record:

- on telling the truth?
- on military service?
- on foreign policy?
- on domestic policy (especially health care)?
- on personal behavior issues?

Oops, I forgot - It's only fashionable to blast Republican presidents.

[theknife]

Originally posted by Drakonix
I think it would be fair to compare the record of G. W. Bush, Jr. to his predecessor in office.

Wanna talk about William Jefferson Clinton's record:

- on telling the truth?
- on military service?
- on foreign policy?
- on domestic policy (especially health care)?
- on personal behavior issues?

Oops, I forgot - It's only fashionable to blast Republican presidents.

Clinton was a slimeball - no argument here telling the truth, military service, and personal behaviour are clearly areas where he fell down... but since they are also issues of a personal nature - i never saw them impact national policy. frankly, since any politician basically sells his soul to get to high office, i really don't expect much in the way of character from our leaders. Clinton's character defects never really bothered me.

with health care, Clinton's reach exceeded his grasp. but i didn't mind the effort to formulate a national health care plan because the free market approach to health care is not improving the price or quality of this country's health care system. in foreign policy,
Clinton arguably had more failures than successes.

with that said, i don't think it's possible to quantitatively compare administrations - way too many variables that change from one administration to the next. all you can do is look at the current guy and decide whether you like the way things are going under his leadership. imo, the fact that Bush is Republican is only minimally relevant.

[theknife]

...distort and suppress findings that contradict administration policies, stack panels with like-minded and underqualified scientists with ties to industry and constituent groups....

the Bushies precook science like they precook military intelligence...

Bioethics Shuffle Ignites Outcry
By Kristen Philipkoski

President Bush's decision to replace two members of his bioethics panel with three appointees whose beliefs are closer to his own has sparked a new round of criticism on how the administration handles science.

On Friday, White House personnel called Elizabeth Blackburn, a professor of biochemistry and biophysics at the University of California at San Francisco, and William May, a former bioethics professor at Southern Methodist University, and informed them that their services were no longer needed on the panel. Both had been outspoken in their opinions that embryonic stem-cell research should move forward and could lead to valuable therapies for many diseases.

Three new members replaced Blackburn and May. All of them have expressed opposition to embryonic stem-cell research, making the 18-member panel largely opposed to it.

http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,...w=wn_tophead_8

[JackSpratts]

it's the new religiously correct. there's plenty more where that came from.

- js.

[span]

who gives a fuck? it's his damn panel and he can put whomever he chooses on it.

[JackSpratts]

Originally posted by span
who gives a fuck? it's his damn panel and he can put whomever he chooses on it.

you're a peice of work span lol. he paying thier salaries now out of his own pocket?

- js.

[scooobiedooobie]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
it's the new religiously correct.

dammm, do you ever know what you're talking about?

william may is both a christian, and a theologian.

and both blackburn's and may's terms had expired.

[theknife]

Originally posted by scooobiedooobie
dammm, do you ever know what you're talking about?

william may is both a christian, and a theologian.

and both blackburn's and may's terms had expired.

all the panel member's terms expired... but the two strongest supporters of stem cell research were the ones who were replaced.

the Bushie's don't really want an advisory panel on the life saving benefits of stem cell research - they want a rubber stamp for their conclusions.

[span]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
you're a peice of work span lol. he paying thier salaries now out of his own pocket?

- js.

it's handpicked by him, therefore he can put who he wants on it. it's not that hard to follow.

[JackSpratts]

the people pay for it. that's even easier to grasp.

- js.

[span]

Originally posted by JackSpratts
the people pay for it. that's even easier to grasp.

- js.

OMG people pay monetarily for things done by our government!!?!?!

thanks for your radically mind opening statement!!!

[Ramona_A_Stone]

originally posted by a passing anencephalic gurgle
who gives a fuck? it's his damn panel and he can put whomever he chooses on it.

lol, of course! It's not as if anyone will actually find anything more credible in it than the mass corporate circle jerk it's intended to be, right?

p.s. I laugh every time I see the title of this thread. The phrase "you don't have to be a rocket scientist" inevitably comes to mind.

[span]

BOOOO CORPORATIONS BAD!!

[Ramona_A_Stone]

No, technically, corporations are only bad when their friends in the highest places use public funding to skew scientific research and debate specifically for the purpose of invigorating them while supressing others without regard to potential benefits to humanity, all under the guise of "bioethics," but frankly I was using the term "corporate circle jerk" more loosely than you seemed to so naturally infer, and so aptly.

Since you didn't read the article obviously, let's review the new appointees, the one's you, the atheist, are arguing, seemingly, in favor of.

Carson is a motivational speaker (wtf!?) who has lamented that "we live in a nation where we can't talk about God in public," according to a Washington Post article. Schaub has referred to research in which embryos are destroyed as "the evil of the willful destruction of innocent human life," according to the same article. And in The Weekly Standard, Lawler warned that if the United States doesn't "become clear as a nation that abortion is wrong," women will eventually abort genetically defective babies.

Try to follow along.

Both of the panelists replaced had been outspoken in their opinions that embryonic stem-cell research should move forward and could lead to valuable therapies for many diseases. Blackburn in fact was one of the most respected scientists in the field. The entire 18 member panel is now conveniently opposed to it, just like God is, discussion over.

A revolutionary new approach to science.

Of course, granted, why anyone would expect anyone who seems to be the intellectual equivalent of a Bible thumping Texas snake oil salesman to know anything either about ethics or science is beyond me in the first place, but there you have it.

[Mazer]

So, what does a bioethics panel do anyway? Do they allocate funding to science labs and studies and such? Do they tell the president which fields of research to support and which to outlaw? Or do they just sit around all day talking? This speaks to your concerns knifey, because I don't see where Bush's science policies are more dangerous than Clinton's personality flaws. As president, Bush doesn't have the time or the education to contribute to science or the scientific community in any meaningful way. I don't mind if a few do-nothing government employees get paid out of my taxes; their wages are minimal compared to the millions that go to legislators who don't represent my interests. I don't care if genetic research slows to a stop in the U.S.; we don't have a monopoly on science in this country. Let the man do what he wants, since he's powerless to stop scientists and scientists are powerless to stop him.

[span]

Originally posted by Ramona_A_Stone
No, technically, corporations are only bad when their friends in the highest places use public funding to skew scientific research and debate specifically for the purpose of invigorating them while supressing others without regard to potential benefits to humanity, all under the guise of "bioethics," but frankly I was using the term "corporate circle jerk" more loosely than you seemed to so naturally infer, and so aptly.

Since you didn't read the article obviously, let's review the new appointees, the one's you, the atheist, are arguing, seemingly, in favor of.




Try to follow along.

Both of the panelists replaced had been outspoken in their opinions that embryonic stem-cell research should move forward and could lead to valuable therapies for many diseases. Blackburn in fact was one of the most respected scientists in the field. The entire 18 member panel is now conveniently opposed to it, just like God is, discussion over.

A revolutionary new approach to science.

Of course, granted, why anyone would expect anyone who seems to be the intellectual equivalent of a Bible thumping Texas snake oil salesman to know anything either about ethics or science is beyond me in the first place, but there you have it.

just because i'm an atheist doesn't mean i should be in favor or either abortion or stem cell research.