Don’t brush my statements aside as liberal rhetoric. There is no substance to this argument. Poke holes with real discussion and debate. Show where the Bush administration has done well with science in policymaking. Or offer a plausible alternate explanation as to why 49 Nobel Laurates are finding it necessary to back a statement of this nature. These people aren’t loose canons.
I don’t really feel like defending the whole of conservative or Republican philosophy.
What you call a disregard for science I call a fundamental difference in policy ideas and political philosophy about what reasonable solutions are.
I knew you wouldn’t specifically address the problems we are discussing. You couldn’t as their actions are utterly indefensible and you’d have to open the door between the impressive analytical side of your brain (I love your air-seat, for example) and the section of your brain unperturbed that President Bush and his cronies enrich and promote themselves while they poison our air and water and spill the blood of other people’s children in the Iraqi desert and the Louisiana deltas.
Difference in policy would be choosing between taxing bad mileage vehicles vs. pushing research on renewable energy. Anti-science is the removal of countless pollution regulations for coal-fired power plants, and encouraging people to drive 6000+ lb vehicles by allowing a tax deduction for them while the entire scientific community says we’re at the brink of a disastrous warming trend, with deep oceans heating up and millions of acres of open water at the North pole for the first time ever.
another athiest who can go to hell
Man it gets me mad to hear this kind of crap on here!
P.S. jethro hasn’t preached anything to you on this forum, so dont make stuff up because you didn’t vote for bush and you think everyone is wrong but you!
WOW!
Stupid PEOPLE!!
Conservatism (or being Republican) has nothing to do with bad scientific practices. These things are happening across party lines because of greed and ignorance. Its the same reason that the DMCA was passed, and why copyright enforcement has become so draconian.
From this UCS website:
Agency Abuses: The Environment
- Deleting Scientific Advice on Endangered Salmon: Scientists asked to remove science-based recommendations from an official report
- Endangered Species: Florida Panther, Bull Trout, Trumpter Swans: Research at the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is distorted and suppressed
- Mountaintop Removal Mining: Administration officials intentionally disregard extensive scientific study on mountaintop removal in Appalacia
- Climate Change: Administration officials undermined science behind climate change by suppressing reports and publicly misrepresenting scientific consensus
- Mercury Emissions: White House suppressed information about the impact of mercury on public health
- Multiple Air Pollutants: The Environmental Protection Agency withheld an analysis showing the benefits of a bipartisan alternative to President Bush's Clear Skies Act
- The Endangered Species Act: Administration officials are manipulating the scientific underpinnings of the policy making process
- Forest Management: A "review team" primarily composed of non-scientists overruled a science-based plan for managing old-growth forest habitat and reducing fire risk
- Emergency Contraception: FDA appointees overruled staff scientists and two independent advisory panels to deny access to emergency contraception
- Abstinence-only Education: The Administration has obscured scientific evaluation of abstinence-only education programs and pressured scientists to promote abstinence.
- HIV/AIDS Education: The CDC was ordered to change its website to raise scientifically questionable doubt about the effectiveness of condoms in preventing the spread of HIV/AIDS.
- Airborne Bacteria: A microbiologist was prohibited at least 11 times from publishing research on airborne bacteria originating from farm wastes.
- Breast Cancer: Information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer was posted on a National Cancer Institute website despite objections from staff scientists.
- Fogarty International Center Advisory Board: Qualified scientists, including a Nobel Laureate, were rejected after being subjected to political litmust tests.
- President's Council on Bioethics: Two leading scientists were dismissed from the panel because of dissenting opinions on the ethics of biomedical research.
- Arms Control Panel: A scientific committee that advised the State Department on matters of arms control was dismissed and never reappointed.
- Army Science Board: An engineer was rejected from a panel because of a contribution to John McCain's 2000 presidential bid.
- National Nuclear Security Administration Panel: A committee set up to advise the administration on scientific issues regarding the maintenance nation's nuclear weapons stockpile and the design and testing of new nuclear warheads was dismissed.
- NIH: Drug Abuse Panel: Potential panel members were asked if they voted for President Bush.
- Lead Poisoning Prevention Panel: Staff-recommended scientists are rejected from a panel considering acceptable levels of lead in drinking water and replaced by appointees with financial ties to the lead industry.
- Workplace Safety Panel: Well-qualified scientists were rejected from a panel that evaluates grants for workplace injuries because of their support for a workplace ergonomics standard.
- Reproductive Health Advisory Committee: An underqualified nominee was suggested as chair of an FDA committee on reproductive health despite scant credentials and highly partisan political views.
- Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Peer Review: A deeply flawed new peer review rule was proposed and, while the most egregious abuses of science were taken out, the rule was ultimately adopted.
- Aluminum Tubes in Iraq: The Administration knowingly disregarded scientific analysis of intelligence data that contradicted its case for war against Iraq.
chuck could do better.
Mixing science and policy and politics just creates confusion and distracts from the actual science. The complaints here are about policy and politics and not about the actual science or about being ignorant of science.
Being a scientist does not make you apolitical. Just because a scientist has an opinion about proper policy in response to his scientific knowledge does not mean that the policy is sound or proper or unbiased.
Why don’t we just turn over all government policy decisions to the well known and well regarded universities, like say the Ivy League schools. They’re full of scientists and very learned people. They can develop a set of policies to maximize personal well-being, economic well-being, the environment, security, public transportation, and all other issues facing government. They’re obviously the best qualified to come up with policies for all that. They have engineers, scientists, very learned people in philosophy, political science, public safety, and all other maters. How could anyone possibly disagree with any of their opinions?
So don’t confuse scientists speaking about science and scientists speaking about policy. Two different issues. People who disagree with scientists about policy are not necessarily ignorant about science or ignoring science. Just like disagreeing with Kyoto does not automatically mean that you don’t believe in the greenhouse effect or global warming.
cHUUUUUUUUUCKKKKKKKKKKK NOOOOOOOOOOORISSSSSSSssss
I understand there are differences between science and policy. But the policy should be guided by science, right JC, and not vice versa? Bush&Co has repeatedly censored science reports they themselves commissioned. I can give you a list if you want.
Thank you for citing an actual issue, and I totally agree with your statement.
Since you brought this up, however, can you name one thing Bush&Co have done to combat global warming? Thier end-run around the argument is to say that although %100 of scientitically-reviewed evidence points to human-caused warming, that this isn’t proof. They prevent any meaningful legislation on that basis. Really.
I disagree. The items in question are about obscuring consensus of the scientific community, changing the results of studies to say what supports a policy, and blocking input from knowledgeable scientists during a decision-making process. This cannot yield good policy, and deceives the public into supporting an issue without knowing all the facts. It promotes ignorance to the truth.
Point taken. Studies are not always unbiased, and quite often a single study is not enough to base any sort of decision upon. Grain of salt rule applies.
Although I know this is said in jest, I feel at liberty to point out that most colleges and universities are rife with internal politics of their own. Something about intelligence, performance and egos in a tight space tends to breed power struggles.
Like I said in the first paragraph, I’m not confusing anything. People who disagree with Kyoto are not necessarily stupid, and quite likely have reasons based in more than just climate studies (say, economics) which they believe warrant their stance.
People who base their opinions and support of policy on data that is incomplete or has been misrepresented are being deceived. Their support was ill-won. To come full circule, a large group of distinguished and nonpartisan scientists believe that this deception is occuring frequently and unchecked.
To correct myself, “nonpartisan” is a baseless assumption. I have no idea what political affiliation (if any) these people have.
Doing some further research (as in, using Google), I found this:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/new-law-restricts-political.html
"January 3, 2006
New Law Restricts Political Interference in Science
Disseminating False Information, Political Litmus Tests Banned
The Union of Concerned Scientists today applauded Congress for outlawing the deliberate dissemination of false or misleading scientific information at the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The law, which was tucked away in the HHS appropriations bill the president signed on Friday, also prohibits questioning scientific advisory panel nominees about their political affiliation, voting history and positions on topics unrelated to the capacity in which they are to serve."
That’s a huge step. I might even stop complaining for awhile. I should read the news more often. 
That’s a hell of a post.
Thanx for taking the time.
he’s dumber than me and he’s president !!!
Here’s something I saw in a blog (probably digg or fark):
Administration official: “Big Bang” is just a theory
These sorts of things do need to be called out. I’m not going to overreact about it, but that sort of mixing politics in science is not good for science.
Yeah - that guy George Deutsch is a gem.
First, I want to say that I think Bush is a lousy American President. I thought he was the better candidate in the last election, but he scares me with his recent policies.
Second, I’d rather live in the United States than in many other countries. Bush is very tame in comparison with some other recent political leaders. For example:
The deaths of millions Congolese, starting in 1885 and continuing into the 20th century, while the Congo Free State (now the Democratic Republic of the Congo) was controlled by King Leopold II of Belgium. It was a regime of widespread forced labor, mass murder, mutilation and torture.
The massacre of the Armenian Christians by the Turks during 1915 & 1916… Although the government of Turkey denies that this actually happened, the evidence of the genocide is overwhelming.
The artificial Ukrainian famine of the 1930s, perpetrated by the communist government of the USSR.
The highly organized extermination of about 11 million persons by the Nazi government of Germany, including six million Jews, millions of Poles, and 400,000 Roma, during World War II. There are Holocaust deniers who say that it never happened. Again, the evidence is overwhelming.
The genocide of Muslims, Roma, Serbian Orthodox and others by the Ustaša – a Roman-Catholic/Fascist regime) which controlled Croatia from 1941 to 1945.
The avoidable “Great Bengal Famine” of 1943, which was under British control at the time. This almost forgotten, needless holocaust killed about four million lives.
The destruction of over one million of the Cambodian intelligentsia and others by the Khmer Rouge Communists in the mid 1970s.
The genocide of the Roman Catholics in East Timor by the Muslim government of Indonesia from 1975 to 1999. About one in three were exterminated.
The genocide of hundreds of thousands of people, mainly Muslims, primarily by Serbian Orthodox Christians in Bosnia-Herzegovina during the 1990s.
The genocide of Christians and Animists by the Muslim government of Sudan. This program continues today, although it does appear to be slowing down.
The 1994 genocide of about 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus in Rwanda.
(Taken from this page)
Bush is causing mass torture and mass murder? I don’t think what he’s doing is right or justified, but it’s nothing compared to the above regimes. You want to see extreme right wing politics? Look at Saddam Hussein or the previous Afghanistan government.
John Childs is right. Bush may not be doing a very good job, but the checks and balances are holding well enough to make it to the next election.
And I think his environmental policies stink. 
My main concern remains what ‘paper-trail-less’ electronic voting machines mean for the pretence of elections.
Next time we talk about the troops…
Time to get this question addressed, at least in part from my opinion.
Every democratic style government needs an effective opposition party to keep the ruling party in check. Without an effective opposition party the ruling party would get out of control.
The way the US Constitution was made and how the government was constructed has basically defaulted us to a two party system because that is the easiest way and most natural way that a ruling party and the opposition can find a balance. Three or more parties would really complicate the consensus building and the ability of the minority to form an effective opposition. It is easier in our system for just two parties to duke it out for control. Each party will tend to create their platform to attract 51% or more of the vote. That guarantees that there will always be an effective and strong opposition party that even if they are in the minority now will be in the majority at some time in the future. Each party will jockey for position to become the majority.
Our system of consensus building in the House and Senate and division of control doesn’t have the structure that would make it likely or effective to work with three or more parties. It would be too unnatural to have two different and competitive parties work together to form an effective opposition to a majority party. It would also be too unnatural for three parties to emerge that could split opinion in the country evenly in thirds. One of the three would always be doomed to be a very minor minority and that wouldn’t bode well for any effective consensus building on the minority side and would end up giving the majority party far more freedom and leeway to abuse their power.
A system of government and legislative control more similar to the UK system would be more likely to have three or more parties evolve. They have a different system of consensus building along with a different system of checks and balances. If the US system was a little more like the UK system then we probably would have three or more parties over here.
So we are and were destined to have two main parties in the US political system. To have more would be unnatural, not sustainable, and would create a ruling party that would gain too much control.
That is just my pop psychology review of why the US political system only has two main parties and always will have only two main parties. I have never studied political science so that’s just my layman’s opinion on the matter. If anyone has studied political science and knows of some resources that address this I’d be interested.
So we’ve just got to live with the two party system in the US. Work within it to effect change. When enough of the US is ready to join in that change one of the parties will move in that direction and adopt it cause it will help them get elected. Think of it as a built in buffer that keeps anything too radical from happening too soon.
I have some opinions that are not going to be adopted any time soon by the Republican party. I’d like to see drugs legalized cause that is a far better solution than our current situation where drugs are illegal, criminal gangs and cartels gain power and leverage, large numbers of citizens break the law, and all because drugs are deemed illegal. I’d also like to see a change in the tax system to something similar to Steve Forbes’ Flat Tax idea. That is far more fair than our current system and much more in line with my belief that government shouldn’t micromanage the populace like they do now with the tax system.
Neither of my two opinions mentioned are likely to see the light of day any time soon. However, it is not impossible that some time in the future, maybe long after I’m dead, that those changes will be made by one of the two political parties. It could happen. Just gotta work withing the system as it is to push those ideas. No sense tilting at windmills to think that some third party will emerge to take those ideas and actually be able to make a difference.
Hey - Deutsch resigned!
(He’s the Bush-appointed NASA public relations official who insisted that NASA scientists referring to the Big Bang in public must preface it with the word “theory”)
Maybe he read our thread and thought it was a blog.
Yup. News of his resignation also made Slashdot. Some of the comments there are interesting (but of course, being Slashdot, most of them are not).
Sometimes things work out as they should.