Bush and Science again...

[Andonyx]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html


White House officials have undermined their own government scientists' research into climate change to play down the impact of global warming, an investigation by The Observer can reveal.

The disclosure will anger environment campaigners who claim that efforts to cut greenhouse gas emissions are being sabotaged because of President George W. Bush's links to the oil industry.

Emails and internal government documents obtained by The Observer show that officials have sought to edit or remove research warning that the problem is serious. They have enlisted the help of conservative lobby groups funded by the oil industry to attack US government scientists if they produce work seen as accepting too readily that pollution is an issue.

Stem Cell reserach, epa reports on 911 toxic fumes, global warming, pollution studies commissioned by his own administration, this guy really hates science.

[arcticpenguin]

Originally posted by Andonyx
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,1046388,00.html


Stem Cell reserach, epa reports on 911 toxic fumes, global warming, pollution studies commissioned by his own administration, this guy really hates science. [/B]
That's too much of a generalization. He loves those smart bombs!

[Sundog]

Does the name Lysenko ring a bell?

See, how could any scientifically-minded person see things like this and support Bush? That's what I don't get. He's not on our side!

[Upchurch]

The man has never really been about telling the whole truth, has he? I've heard him described as one of the most secretive presidents ever.

[Shinytop]

Although many examples exist of the lack of support of science (especially if it conflicts with the Bible) existing in this presidency global warming as a result of man is not the slam dunk indicated in these posts. There are many reputable scientists around the world who do not accept that. Bush's record is bad enough on science without adding items still in contention within the scientific community.

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Although many examples exist of the lack of support of science (especially if it conflicts with the Bible) existing in this presidency global warming as a result of man is not the slam dunk indicated in these posts. There are many reputable scientists around the world who do not accept that. Bush's record is bad enough on science without adding items still in contention within the scientific community.

I have no problem with the scientific community disputing issues from a scientific basis. However, when Bush disagrees with the conclusions of a committee that _HE_ created, then you know that it is not a scientific issue, but political.

Seriously. He created a committee that came back with statements about global warming that the administration didn't like, so he changed them. That's not a result of "contention in the science community."

It's one thing to gerry-pick scientists that will support your position. But to create a committee of scientists to study an issue and then decide afterward that you don't like what they have to say is the ultimate in arrogance.

If nothing else, what does it say about a guy who can't even hand-pick a committee that will support his position? If the issue is so contentious in the scientific community, then it shouldn't be that hard to find enough experts to fill a task force like this. (Actually, I think that is the biggest problem - there aren't enough experts in the field that would disagree with the committee's conclusion)

[Andonyx]

Originally posted by Shinytop
Although many examples exist of the lack of support of science (especially if it conflicts with the Bible) existing in this presidency global warming as a result of man is not the slam dunk indicated in these posts. There are many reputable scientists around the world who do not accept that. Bush's record is bad enough on science without adding items still in contention within the scientific community.

Woah woah woah, first, no one here said anything in their posts championing the cause of global warming panic. What is disturbing and is in evidence of the posts is the supression of scientific reserach. It will always be in contention, and always be a nebulous issue if we cannot get access, or is the scientific community feels intimidated to publish skewed results.

This is an issue of censorship, and global warming happens to be the circumstance right now, and as you can see there are others:

http://news.independent.co.uk/world/americas/story.jsp?story=445464


President George Bush is mounting an intensive campaign to force European countries to drop safety tests expected to save thousands of lives each year, internal US government documents seen by The Independent on Sunday reveal. Britain, which has been generally supportive, last week denounced the measures as "disastrously wrong".
The documents - which include diplomatic cables signed by the US Secretary of State, Colin Powell - show that the Bush administration has threatened Europe with trade sanctions if it goes ahead with the tests, which are designed to protect workers and the public from highly toxic chemicals.

[pupdog]

Add to the list the effort to undo the Clinton administration's bid to lower the standard for arsenic in drinking water, packing a CDC advisory committe with lead-industry persons, temporary removal of National Cancer Institute's Web page stating that abortions did not increase cancer risk (oops--that was Congress!).

Another indication of the Administration's attitude toward science is to look at its funding requests.

[Zep]

To us small-fry, the guy is scary-bad. It has gone beyond just silly, beyond ludicrous, it is now downright frightening.

PLEASE, USA, elect an educated person as president later this year! Either party, doesn't matter, just make the bad man stop!

[VernorsRush]

Originally posted by Zep
To us small-fry, the guy is scary-bad. It has gone beyond just silly, beyond ludicrous, it is now downright frightening.

PLEASE, USA, elect an educated person as president later this year! Either party, doesn't matter, just make the bad man stop! Unfortunately, that takes an informed electorate, which, in general, we don't have. It's kind of hard to pass judgement on a candidate's education level from 30 second sound bites.

[Zep]

Originally posted by VernorsRush
Unfortunately, that takes an informed electorate, which, in general, we don't have. It's kind of hard to pass judgement on a candidate's education level from 30 second sound bites. 30 second sound bites are ALL we get to see of him here, and even so, opinion is definitely not running in his favour.

Perhaps it's a case of, "People outside a burning house generally have a better view of it than people on the inside"?

[crocodile deathroll]

The only brains he uses is Condy Rice's

[Cain]

Originally posted by pgwenthold


I have no problem with the scientific community disputing issues from a scientific basis. However, when Bush disagrees with the conclusions of a committee that _HE_ created, then you know that it is not a scientific issue, but political.

And let's remind ourselves Nobel prize winners questioned the existence of atoms well into the 20th century.

From an excellent article in Salon on the very real growing consensus among scientists on global warming:

Now, more than a decade later, the new Bush administration is continuing to codify the naysaying view of global warming skeptics into government policy, counter to the growing consensus of most of the world's climate scientists. Their frustration is palpable: While more research is always good, they say, no amount of further study will change the fact that humans are in fact contributing to the warming of the planet.

"Ludicrous," is how Raymond Bradley, the director of the University of Massachusetts Climate System Research Center in Amherst, Mass., characterized the plan at a meeting of some 1,000 climate scientists in late July, reported on by the Associated Press. "Right now, we have good, strong scientific evidence supported by the vast majority of scientists who studied the problem to say we are facing a serious problem," he said.

Bradley charged that the White House is capitulating to "fringe science ... Politicians are always faced with making decisions in the face of uncertainty, but I think the uncertainty over this issue is relatively low."

...

The now infamous Luntz memo advised that "voters believe that there is no consensus about global warming within the scientific community. Should the public come to believe that the scientific issues are settled, their views about global warming will change accordingly. Therefore, you need to continue to make the lack of scientific certainty a primary issue in the debate ..."

And that Luntz memo can be found here: http://www.ewg.org/briefings/luntzmemo/pdf/LuntzResearch_environment.pdf

Frank Luntz is the GOP pollster and much loved cable news pundit.

Simply granting the preponderance of evidence, the concern of the scientific community, the findings of the president's own EPA, and the potentially catastrophic global consequences (affecting mainly the poorest regions), then Bush's stonewalling on this particular issue -- and his self-serving approach to science in general -- is profoundly and unspeakably wrong.

But hey, let's put this back in perspective: It's not like he's getting a blow job outside of marriage.