Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

tusaki · Feb 19, 2004, 01:21 pm

This was just posted at slashdot.

"Scientists: Bush Distorts Science:
The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry."

issued statement: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/r...rsirelease.html
wired.com news: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html
Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/...7072781496.html
New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/...&partner=GOOGLE
The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...1151187,00.html

And please have a look at the discussion at slashdot.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 19, 2004, 02:02 pm

Well, no shit, Sherlock!

I mean, after denying global warming, rebuffing the Kyoto protocol, attempting to reinstate nuclear testing, cutting funding to the EPA, reducing standards on industrial and vehicular emissions, fighting to open up parklands to strip mining, logging and oil drilling, and denying stem cell research, what tipped you off?

Paavo · Feb 19, 2004, 03:17 pm

hahahahhaha @ AK. x)

Well yeah, but it's nice that it's "getting into the open"...at least more now, maybe...perhaps? :|

Impenitent · Feb 19, 2004, 03:25 pm

scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins

**Pooeypants** · Feb 19, 2004, 04:03 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
Maybe he assessed the evidence at hand and came to the same conclusion about Global Warming.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 19, 2004, 04:36 pm

Hahaha, "Scientists distort science to advance their political agenda..." as compared to, say... politicians? So you're telling me that 96% of the world's scientists and every government but ours is fulfilling a "communist conspiracy" by daring to advance the theory of Global Warming? What ARE you smoking, man?

damnrad · Feb 19, 2004, 08:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What nonsense! Science has rigorous methods for undertaking research, rigorous peer-review for vetting findings and conclusions, and active debate and disagreement when things are unclear. Is it in the interests of all scientists to claim global warming? No, for several reasons: some work for companies or organizations that may be hurt by actions taken to counteract global warming; most are concerned with the integrity of science, so would not contribute to a 'plot' to claim an untruth; and most realize that they could gain prestige, position, and even wealth if they could disprove something accepted by the majority. The original warnings about global warming constituted a hypothesis that it might be occurring. It took a long time to test that hypothesis, because climate is very complex, and because the hypothesis was concerned with a secular trend among variable and highly-ciclical phenomena. Scientists lined up on all sides of the debate. As more data has been amassed, the hypothesis has gained significant support -- rather the hypotheses: (1) there is a trend toward overall warming of the world climate; (2) this trend means greater variation in weather patterns in different places at different times; and (3) the trend is attributable in large part to human activity. Most scientists accept these hypotheses as verified because the data have been found to verify them much more than to reject them.

What can be done about global warming? That involves another set of hypotheses and much more research. It's not clear that anything will make much difference; but it may be that some actions can contribute greatly to ameliorating the problems. Reducing the output of CO2 would appear to go a considerable way to ameliorating those problems, but that itself is far from simple. Unfortunately, recent research appears to show that sequestration of CO2, getting it back out of the atmosphere through natural or artificial means, may not work well -- at least not by encouraging the rapid growth of trees. Slowing the emissions may be the only way to go, a considerable problem in a world civilization that runs on technologies that emit considerable volumes of CO2.

And by the way, the so-called socialist countries of the world tend to reject the reality or importance global warming: it conflicts with their ideologies and perceived self-interests.

Impenitent · Feb 20, 2004, 01:06 am

the "scientists" have already sold you on their lies...

other scientists show other findings... if you pervert and interpret the data in one way you get global warming, if you read it another way we are in for another ice age...

the "scientific evidence" supports both theories...

which scientist do you want to believe?

it is a bunch of lies designed to cause unrest and discontent... and it is working quite well, see how you have responded with horror at the thought that you could have been duped by the "objective unbiased scientific truth" as opposed actually seeing it for what it is...

NotScientific · Feb 20, 2004, 08:13 am

Why's everybody (well nearly) against scientists? It doesn't surprise me that politicians hide some things and all! But I don't think that they invented the global warming stuff. Some weeks ago here in Mauritius it was 32 degrees Celsius and humidity was as high as 87%. Wasn't like that b4.

castille · Feb 21, 2004, 08:36 am

Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human.

RebelWithanAK · Feb 21, 2004, 10:24 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,)
Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>What kind of bullshit post is that?

Impenitent · Feb 21, 2004, 12:07 pm

using science, one can prove anything... it is a question of which science you believe...

delFoolio · Feb 21, 2004, 08:20 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by
castille:

Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human.
<hr size="1" /></blockquote>
It means technically we, as humans, are really just advanced animals. But how can we be animals when we have the power of choice? If we were all animals then the world would not have the future of global warming, or any other disastrous theory, because it would be following it's natural path.

And no matter what is predicted for the future we can easily know without giving it much thought that us humans are killing the Earth.

Edge · Feb 21, 2004, 11:53 pm

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

What nonsense! Science has rigorous methods for undertaking research, rigorous peer-review for vetting findings and conclusions, and active debate and disagreement when things are unclear. <hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Oh that this were true. I was an engineering scientist for a fortune 100 company several years ago. Got my patients, intellectual property disclosures, etc. For hard sciences, where experiments can prove or disprove a hypothesis, your point about rigerous methods is true. For climate and other things that cannot be experimented, the debate rages. And for the climate issue, the only "evidence" is in the form of computer models that will not pass peer review.
http://w114.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36643

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (NotScientific,)
Why's everybody (well nearly) against scientists? It doesn't surprise me that politicians hide some things and all! But I don't think that they invented the global warming stuff.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

I'm not against scientists, but anyone who thinks that they are automatically immune to sociopolitical prejudices is fooling themselves. Scientists are human just like everybody else. When experimental methods can (dis)prove something, most scientists will have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their error. In the case of global warming, evolution, and other issues that cannot be proven according to the scientific process, they can be just a hard headed and "religious" as the rest of the us.

shunyadragon · Feb 23, 2004, 08:43 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,)
scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Your statements reflect a common misunderstanding of the scientific community. Science itself has an interesting agenda, that dictates that distortion or the manipulation of science for what ever reason is the greatest taboo. To uncover such nonesence wins the scientist the greatest laurel and world recognition as has happened many times. To uncover fraud and the misuse of science reaps great rewards.

Impenitent · Feb 23, 2004, 11:01 am

"Your statements reflect a common misunderstanding of the scientific community."

if I misunderstood why would there be a need for

"To uncover fraud and the misuse of science reaps great rewards. "?

it must be because "scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... " as I said

Samildanach · Mar 10, 2004, 10:07 am

Really when it comes down to climate its all about intepretation of the results based on a predictive model. The whole problem is unless your model is accurate your predictions don't mean squat and with a system as complex as the weather on a global scale...there are just too many variables and we don't have enough long term hard data.
The best way they could possibly prove there models are right is instead of going forwards, predict backwards and compare it to geological records. Once you have a model that can predict backwards then go forwards. Mind you thats probably what they are doing but you never know.

Feb 19, 2004, 01:21 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
tusaki Playful Location: Groningen, the Netherlands Posts: 805	This was just posted at slashdot. "Scientists: Bush Distorts Science: The Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization which includes 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement accusing the Bush administration of distorting scientific fact and supressing findings to fit administration policy decisions on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry. They also issued a 37-page report detailing the accusations. Bush's science adviser, John Marburger, called the report biased and said he was troubled that some very prestigious scientists had signed the statement. Numerous complaints from the scientific community about the administration's scientific policy-making prompted the The Union of Concerned Scientists to begin investigating the issue last summer. As an example, the group noted the panel that advises the Centers for Disease Control on lead poisoning had been prepared to recommend strengthening regulations due to new findings on lead toxicity, but had their recommendation rejected by the administration and two panel members replaced by individuals with ties to the lead industry." issued statement: http://www.ucsusa.org/global_environment/r...rsirelease.html wired.com news: http://www.wired.com/news/medtech/0,1286,62339,00.html Sydney Morning Herald: http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/02/19/...7072781496.html New York Times: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/...&partner=GOOGLE The Guardian: http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,1227...1151187,00.html And please have a look at the discussion at slashdot. Hope & Dream

Feb 19, 2004, 02:02 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Well, no shit, Sherlock! I mean, after denying global warming, rebuffing the Kyoto protocol, attempting to reinstate nuclear testing, cutting funding to the EPA, reducing standards on industrial and vehicular emissions, fighting to open up parklands to strip mining, logging and oil drilling, and denying stem cell research, what tipped you off? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 19, 2004, 03:25 pm	#4 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 19, 2004, 04:03 pm	#5 (permalink) (top)
Pooeypants Neo Moderator Location: England Posts: 5,609	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Maybe he assessed the evidence at hand and came to the same conclusion about Global Warming. War is Peace Freedom is Slavery Ignorance is strength Harness the power of Ingsoc, then you can capture someone killed the year before

Feb 19, 2004, 04:36 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Hahaha, "Scientists distort science to advance their political agenda..." as compared to, say... politicians? So you're telling me that 96% of the world's scientists and every government but ours is fulfilling a "communist conspiracy" by daring to advance the theory of Global Warming? What ARE you smoking, man? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 19, 2004, 03:17 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
Paavo Location: Finland Posts: 712	hahahahhaha @ AK. x) Well yeah, but it's nice that it's "getting into the open"...at least more now, maybe...perhaps? :\|

Feb 19, 2004, 08:20 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
damnrad Igneous Magma Posts: 264	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What nonsense! Science has rigorous methods for undertaking research, rigorous peer-review for vetting findings and conclusions, and active debate and disagreement when things are unclear. Is it in the interests of all scientists to claim global warming? No, for several reasons: some work for companies or organizations that may be hurt by actions taken to counteract global warming; most are concerned with the integrity of science, so would not contribute to a 'plot' to claim an untruth; and most realize that they could gain prestige, position, and even wealth if they could disprove something accepted by the majority. The original warnings about global warming constituted a hypothesis that it might be occurring. It took a long time to test that hypothesis, because climate is very complex, and because the hypothesis was concerned with a secular trend among variable and highly-ciclical phenomena. Scientists lined up on all sides of the debate. As more data has been amassed, the hypothesis has gained significant support -- rather the hypotheses: (1) there is a trend toward overall warming of the world climate; (2) this trend means greater variation in weather patterns in different places at different times; and (3) the trend is attributable in large part to human activity. Most scientists accept these hypotheses as verified because the data have been found to verify them much more than to reject them. What can be done about global warming? That involves another set of hypotheses and much more research. It's not clear that anything will make much difference; but it may be that some actions can contribute greatly to ameliorating the problems. Reducing the output of CO2 would appear to go a considerable way to ameliorating those problems, but that itself is far from simple. Unfortunately, recent research appears to show that sequestration of CO2, getting it back out of the atmosphere through natural or artificial means, may not work well -- at least not by encouraging the rapid growth of trees. Slowing the emissions may be the only way to go, a considerable problem in a world civilization that runs on technologies that emit considerable volumes of CO2. And by the way, the so-called socialist countries of the world tend to reject the reality or importance global warming: it conflicts with their ideologies and perceived self-interests.

Feb 20, 2004, 01:06 am	#8 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	the "scientists" have already sold you on their lies... other scientists show other findings... if you pervert and interpret the data in one way you get global warming, if you read it another way we are in for another ice age... the "scientific evidence" supports both theories... which scientist do you want to believe? it is a bunch of lies designed to cause unrest and discontent... and it is working quite well, see how you have responded with horror at the thought that you could have been duped by the "objective unbiased scientific truth" as opposed actually seeing it for what it is... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 20, 2004, 08:13 am	#9 (permalink) (top)
NotScientific Molten Ash Location: Mauritius Posts: 35	Why's everybody (well nearly) against scientists? It doesn't surprise me that politicians hide some things and all! But I don't think that they invented the global warming stuff. Some weeks ago here in Mauritius it was 32 degrees Celsius and humidity was as high as 87%. Wasn't like that b4. I'm Columnist here at Volconvo.com and also at BackWash.com. Check my columns in the Science forum then.

Feb 21, 2004, 08:36 am	#10 (permalink) (top)
castille Citizen #21521 Posts: 2,599	Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human. Ideological loyalty is the act of giving your soul to a vague concept, to be manipulated by people smarter than you.

Feb 21, 2004, 10:24 am	#11 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (castille,) Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>What kind of bullshit post is that? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Feb 21, 2004, 12:07 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	using science, one can prove anything... it is a question of which science you believe... "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Feb 21, 2004, 08:20 pm	#13 (permalink) (top)
delFoolio Sedimentary Rock Posts: 12	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by castille: Using science, I am able to show there is no such thing as a human. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> It means technically we, as humans, are really just advanced animals. But how can we be animals when we have the power of choice? If we were all animals then the world would not have the future of global warming, or any other disastrous theory, because it would be following it's natural path. And no matter what is predicted for the future we can easily know without giving it much thought that us humans are killing the Earth.

Feb 21, 2004, 11:53 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Edge Molten Ash Posts: 76	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (damnrad,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> What nonsense! Science has rigorous methods for undertaking research, rigorous peer-review for vetting findings and conclusions, and active debate and disagreement when things are unclear. <hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Oh that this were true. I was an engineering scientist for a fortune 100 company several years ago. Got my patients, intellectual property disclosures, etc. For hard sciences, where experiments can prove or disprove a hypothesis, your point about rigerous methods is true. For climate and other things that cannot be experimented, the debate rages. And for the climate issue, the only "evidence" is in the form of computer models that will not pass peer review. http://w114.wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36643 </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (NotScientific,) Why's everybody (well nearly) against scientists? It doesn't surprise me that politicians hide some things and all! But I don't think that they invented the global warming stuff.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> I'm not against scientists, but anyone who thinks that they are automatically immune to sociopolitical prejudices is fooling themselves. Scientists are human just like everybody else. When experimental methods can (dis)prove something, most scientists will have the intellectual honesty to acknowledge their error. In the case of global warming, evolution, and other issues that cannot be proven according to the scientific process, they can be just a hard headed and "religious" as the rest of the us.

Feb 23, 2004, 08:43 am	#15 (permalink) (top)
shunyadragon Hot Lava Location: Hillsborough, NC Posts: 940	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Impenitent,) scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... you believe the scientists who say there is global warming because you like the communist politics of the global warming crowd... the reverse is true as well... which is truth? it doesn't matter... the side with the biggest guns wins<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Your statements reflect a common misunderstanding of the scientific community. Science itself has an interesting agenda, that dictates that distortion or the manipulation of science for what ever reason is the greatest taboo. To uncover such nonesence wins the scientist the greatest laurel and world recognition as has happened many times. To uncover fraud and the misuse of science reaps great rewards. The empty cup contains the most Frank A Doonan Turn weapons into peace and friendship with gifts of jade-silk www.shunyadragon.com I do not know, therefore I think . . .

Feb 23, 2004, 11:01 am	#16 (permalink) (top)
Impenitent Hot Lava Posts: 1,859	"Your statements reflect a common misunderstanding of the scientific community." if I misunderstood why would there be a need for "To uncover fraud and the misuse of science reaps great rewards. "? it must be because "scientists distort science to advance their political agenda... " as I said "I really like this jacket, but the sleeves are much too long..." insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, but expecting different results...

Mar 10, 2004, 10:07 am	#17 (permalink) (top)
Samildanach Pragmatist Location: UK London Posts: 1,979	Really when it comes down to climate its all about intepretation of the results based on a predictive model. The whole problem is unless your model is accurate your predictions don't mean squat and with a system as complex as the weather on a global scale...there are just too many variables and we don't have enough long term hard data. The best way they could possibly prove there models are right is instead of going forwards, predict backwards and compare it to geological records. Once you have a model that can predict backwards then go forwards. Mind you thats probably what they are doing but you never know. I wouldn't recommend sex, drugs and insanity for everyone, but its always worked for me. Never think that war, no matter how necessary, nor how justified, is not a crime." (Ernest Hemingway)