Misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration is unprecedented...

Why do American scientists hate America?

By the way, foxnews was more kind than USA Today.

Bush's changes to advisory process draw scientists' ire

By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY
(excerpts)

A bipartisan, all-star roster of Nobel Prize winners and former federal science officials accused the Bush administration Wednesday of politicizing science.

"When scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions," charges a document signed by 60 scientists in an unprecedented joint effort by the leaders of the nation's science establishment.

They are calling for an independent congressional investigation of federal science-advisory policies.

Signers include 20 Nobel Prize winners and 19 recipients of the National Medal of Science, awarded by the president for outstanding contributions in the field. Nobel winners include former National Institutes of Health chief Harold Varmus to pioneering chemist Richard Smalley (edit: Rice U, a conservative fellow, by the way). Medal winners include H-bomb designer Richard Garwin and Harvard physicist Norman Ramsey, both advisers to Republican administrations.

"These are very distinguished scientists with years of public service," says science policy expert Al Teich of the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
...
The report lists the following as objectionable practices, echoing past complaints from former government researchers:

• The removal of highly qualified scientists from lead-poisoning, environment, health and drug-abuse panels and their replacement with industry representatives.

• Forbidding EPA, Health and Human Services, Agriculture, and Interior Department scientists from speaking publicly.

• Revisions to the Endangered Species Act that limit scientists from commenting on the protection of habitats.

• The disbanding of advisory panels on nuclear weapons and arms control.

• The dismissal of assessments by national lab experts on the likelihood that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.


EDIT: okay, so it's clearly not partisan, given the mixed backgrounds of these people. What'd I'd really like to point out to non-scientists is this: it is incredibly difficult to bring together a group of scientists, (especially big shots like these), and have them agree on much of anything (aside from global warming, evolution, and sensible things like that of course).

 

Why do American scientists hate America?

B-bob you beat me.

The only thing I can add. Don't these scientists realize everything changed on 9/11?

 

Beautiful. Stupid scientists! The laws of nature and the scientific method both changed forever on 9/11.

 

Science? Don't you know God tells Bush what to do, or so he would have some believe.

 

Beat me to it!

The funniest/saddest part is the response by the Bushies indicates they didn't even read it.

 

The USA Today piece quotes Marburger as saying he's not even going to bother the president with this joint announcement. Sad.

 

Science? We talkin 'bout science, man.

 

Well, Bush said himself that he doesn't read the papers or pay attention to the news (right!) so he'll never know. Oh, joy! They say ignorance is bliss, so we have the happiest President we've had in modern times.

It makes me feel so secure in our leadership.
(someone get me a bucket... I'm gonna hurl!!)

 

They do pay attention to the bottom line, though. One of the most egregious examples is all the lead industry consultants on the lead poisoning prevention advisory board - who believe raising the amount of acceptable lead in children when all the evidence indicates the amount should be lowered so those industries will spend more money on reelecting Republicans.

 

I've seen several threads on Bush suppressing Science in favor of his own agenda, and this is one issue I've never seen the Bush supporters on the board even comment on. I'm guessing it's because they agree it's reprehensible, and don't have anything to add. If that's the case then it looks like we have an issue on the board that has unanimous opinon regarding it.

 

I doubt you'd have to cast too far around here to find someone willing to argue that since various scientific principles - evolution, the theory of relativity, the periodic table of elements, you know, things like that - aren't scripturally supported, then it follows that science and by extension scientists are suspect and worthy of suppression, etc.

Just watch. Someone'll come along and submit just this sort of argument.

 

You stupid liberals and your lavendar tower marxists with your Bush hating agenda. Sure, it might not fit your fancy ass cambridge level science, but the free market and private industry will figure it out, including your stupid global warming mumbo jumbo. Have a little faith.

 

ahmmm...

you forgot to say

CASE CLOSED

 

It's more like

LAB NOTEBOOK CLOSED

or

EYES FIRMLY CLOSED

 

if Bush and his administration "have a theory and a fact, and [the two] don't coincide, they get rid of the fact instead of the theory." - Howard Dean, just before YEEARRGGHH....

 

When the facts don't align with your priorities, change the facts.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationw...feb14,1,629175.story?coll=la-headlines-nation

THE NATION
EPA Relaxes Estimations of Park Pollution
North Dakota can alter the system to allow a new power plant nearby. Foes fear the precedent.


By Elizabeth Shogren, Times Staff Writer


WASHINGTON — In a decision that raises the possibility of increased pollution in national parks around the country, the Bush administration will allow North Dakota to change the way it estimates air pollution over Theodore Roosevelt National Park.

The change, announced Friday in Bismarck, N.D., means that a consortium of power companies will be able to go ahead with a coal-fired power plant in North Dakota, and other power plants could open in the future, state officials said.


Compliance with the Clean Air Act's requirements on national parks is determined by a system for estimating pollution levels. The new system, which is expected to produce lower estimates, could allow new coal-fired plants to be built near the North Dakota park without violating the law.

"That sets the stage for new investments in our energy industry and real progress in our rural communities," Gov. John Hoeven said in announcing the agreement with the Environmental Protection Agency.

David Glatt, chief of the environmental health section of North Dakota's Health Department, said the changes should make the state's estimates better match the actual air quality over the park. As a result, the state will be able to allow more projects that create air pollution, like power plants, to be built.

"What we've done is we've got a model that does a better job of predicting what the real world sulfur dioxide emissions will be," Glatt said.

Sulfur dioxide emissions contribute to the haze visible in skylines and are a major source of acid rain, which damages trees, waterways and other components of the park system, such as national monuments

Several environmental groups challenged the state's description of what the new system will do.

"Our deep concern is that this is a damaging case of politics trumping sound science and the long-standing judgment of EPA's professional staff that could have far-reaching impacts and allow harmful air pollution degradation at national parks across the country," said Vickie Patton of Denver, a lawyer for Environmental Defense, a national environmental group.

"New coal-fired power plants are being proposed across the inter-Western United States that are predicted to have harmful impacts on national parks."

The EPA and the state had been at loggerheads since 1999 over whether the air over the park and the Lostwood National Wildlife Refuge violated federal standards meant to prevent degradation of air quality in public lands.

As recently as last summer, the EPA had argued that because the park's air violated pollution standards, additional energy development should not be allowed.

But in a draft memorandum of understanding with the state, the EPA agreed to allow the state to use a new technique for estimating the pollution that state officials said would show that the air was not as dirty as previously thought.

Environmental groups accused the EPA of violating the spirit of the 1977 amendments to the Clean Air Act, which was designed to protect national parks and other public lands from becoming polluted by industrial development.

"Under the Clean Air Act you are supposed to keep pristine areas like natural parks relatively pristine," said Frank O'Donnell, executive director of the Clean Air Trust, an advocacy group. "This looks to be a terrible precedent for national parks across the country."

The environmentalists said this was another in a string of efforts by the Bush administration to ease pollution rules to benefit the energy industry.
.
.
.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/22/p...0800&en=6084932ce1ef4ae0&ei=5062&

Taking Spin Out of Report That Made Bad Into Good Health
By ROBERT PEAR

Published: February 22, 2004


ASHINGTON, Feb. 21 — The Bush administration says it improperly altered a report documenting large racial and ethnic disparities in health care, but it will soon publish the full, unexpurgated document.

"There was a mistake made," Tommy G. Thompson, the secretary of health and human services, told Congress last week. "It's going to be rectified."



Mr. Thompson said that "some individuals took it upon themselves" to make the report sound more positive than was justified by the data.

.
.
.
The theme of the original report was that members of minorities "tend to be in poorer health than other Americans" and that "disparities are pervasive in our health care system," contributing to higher rates of disease and disability.

By contrast, the final report has an upbeat tone, beginning, "The overall health of Americans has improved dramatically over the last century."

.
.
.

 

I don't see what the big deal is.

There are more important issues at hand that just what the scientists see with their narrow, focused, minds. Political issues.

 

I think you forgot the on this one.