Bush "systematically distorts scientific fact"

[natty dread]

This report should make for some interesting reading:

Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

February 18, 2004
By JAMES GLANZ

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically
distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on
the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear
weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60
influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said
in a statement issued today.

The sweeping charges were later discussed in a conference
call with some of the scientists that was 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. The organization also
issued a 37-page report today that it said detailed the
accusations.

Together, 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 systematically 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."

The White House had no immediate comment on the statements.


Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at
Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in
the conference call, said the administration had "engaged
in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of
science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried asserted
that what he called "the cavalier attitude toward science"
could place at risk the basis for the nation's long-term
prosperity, health and military prowess.

The scientists denied that they had political motives in
releasing the documents as the 2004 presidential race began
to take clear shape, a day after Senator John Kerry won the
Wisconsin Democratic primary and solidified his position as
President Bush's likely opponent in the fall. The
organization's report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year
to prepare - much longer than originally planned - and had
been released as soon as it was ready.

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

[AntiSoCalSkier]

Originally posted by natty dread
This report should make for some interesting reading:

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically
distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on
the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear
weaponry at home and abroad, a group of about 60
influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, said
in a statement issued today.

For a bunch of scientists, their spelling sure sucks. It's nucular! NUCULAR!!!!!

[Viva]

Oh those pesky scientists...

Stuff like this is pretty disturbing. Bush appointed himself a biblical scholar and now he's an expert in the scientific method...dream on Mr. President.

Articles of a similar vein have been popping up with regularity in the past couple of months in various scientific journals.

Edit: Here's one:

URI marine biologist says CO2 injection in deep sea would alter ocean chemistry, affect numerous creatures

KINGSTON, R.I. -- November 17, 2003 -- A Bush Administration proposal to mitigate the effects of global warming by capturing carbon dioxide emissions from power plants and injecting it into the deep sea could have disastrous effects on sea life, according to a University of Rhode Island researcher.

EditII: This one's good too:

President Bush also proposes to spend as much as $6 billion over the next 10 years for Project BioShield to buy new drugs, speed drug development, and allow emergency use of drugs that are not fully tested. The White House has not said whether the $6 billion will be appropriated with new funds or taken from other budgets.

[Skidawg]

James Glanz has now been reported to be heading up the "ISN'T THIS FREAKING OBVIOUS" commitee. They're new mascot will be called "Captain Obvious" and the tag line will be "Duh? Really?".
No word on any oil company sponsorships yet.....

[natty dread]

Originally posted by Skidawg
James Glanz has now been reported to be heading up the "ISN'T THIS FREAKING OBVIOUS" commitee. They're new mascot will be called "Captain Obvious" and the tag line will be "Duh? Really?".
No word on any oil company sponsorships yet.....

[George W. Bush]

Now let me tell you the facts, see, and these are some good facts, we spent a lot of time on these facts, and the, the, the American people want their freedom. Now there's a war going on, and I can't help that- I don't want to be a war president, but the terrorists threats of a madman can't be stopped unless freedom is brought to the people of Iraq by the United States and our allies. The use of Co2 and other chemical agents was a real threat-they had the capability to produce it, but who cares? The dinosaurs? Well, I think, I think that America is strong, and our economy is strong, and we are bringing freedom to the madmen who have oppressed freedom in the middle east, and if there's anyone who has a problem with that then they're going to need to take it up with the dinosaur folks, and not the USA.

[fez]

Originally posted by AntiSoCalSkier
For a bunch of scientists, their spelling sure sucks. It's nucular! NUCULAR!!!!!

nuclear
nu·cle·ar

Usage Note: The pronunciation (nky-lr), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-kl-r), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-ky-lr), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular.

always helps to check your facts before embarking on a rant.

[George W. Bush]

Oh, and they had nuculars too.

[AntiSoCalSkier]

fez -

[fez]

yeah, i figured it out right after i clicked submit.

[Dr. Crash]

fez -

[Tavi]

Originally posted by fez
nuclear
nu·cle·ar

Usage Note: The pronunciation (nky-lr), which is generally considered incorrect, is an example of how a familiar phonological pattern can influence an unfamiliar one. The usual pronunciation of the final two syllables of this word is (-kl-r), but this sequence of sounds is rare in English. Much more common is the similar sequence (-ky-lr), which occurs in words like particular, circular, spectacular, and in many scientific words like molecular, ocular, and vascular.

always helps to check your facts before embarking on a rant.

So, what yer sayin is that the cerect way to say the werd is "neukyaler." Rite?

What's funny is that in the State of The Union drinking game, that was available on the web, you did not get any points for nukuler as a Bushism because it was a mathmatical given that he would say it, almost like if he would have used ebonics it would have been acceptable. What a funny guy. Too bad he has the keys for now.

[Gregbo]

oh god - george w has made it here too....
I come here to get away from his shit....

[TJ.Brk]

Guys all politicians whether they are Mayors, Congressman, Senators, or President's have distorted any and all facts no matter what subject matter to make their stance on issues look more feasible. It's nieve to think otherwise. Democrats, Repulicans, Green Party, even independents do this. Don't make me use the "reach around" quote again

[slippy]

Originally posted by TJ.Brk
It's nieve to think otherwise.

Yeah, we's dumb!

[Tippster]

Ironically, "NIEVE" means "Snow" in spanish...

[Spats]

Originally posted by TJ.Brk
It's nieve to think otherwise. Democrats, Repulicans, Green Party, even independents do this. Don't make me use the "reach around" quote again

And it's even more naive to think that some don't distort the facts more than others, or that some distortions aren't more harmful than others.

My favorite example: "I did not have sex with that woman" versus "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

Consequence of first: blowjob.
Consequence of second: over 500 Americans dead, over $100 billion dollars spent.

[Will]

Originally posted by George W. Bush
Now let me tell you the facts, see, and these are some good facts, we spent a lot of time on these facts, and the, the, the American people want their freedom. Now there's a war going on, and I can't help that- I don't want to be a war president, but the terrorists threats of a madman can't be stopped unless freedom is brought to the people of Iraq by the United States and our allies. The use of Co2 and other chemical agents was a real threat-they had the capability to produce it, but who cares? The dinosaurs? Well, I think, I think that America is strong, and our economy is strong, and we are bringing freedom to the madmen who have oppressed freedom in the middle east, and if there's anyone who has a problem with that then they're going to need to take it up with the dinosaur folks, and not the USA.

Speaking of drinking games.....

Get yo game on muthafucka!
1 shot for every time he sez "terrorist"
1 shot for every time he sez "madman"
1 shot for every time he sez "freedom"

Let's get started! I know I've got some catching up to do!

http://www.yucatantoday.com/images/culture/tequila.jpg

[DB]

Originally posted by Spats

My favorite example: "I did not have sex with that woman" versus "Iraq has weapons of mass destruction."

Consequence of first: blowjob.
Consequence of second: over 500 Americans dead, over $100 billion dollars spent.

You know I think there may of even been a few thousand innocent Iraqi men, women and children dead or missing legs / arms and stuff like that. Come to think of it some soilders from other places got shot too (from both sides).


Officer. "Now here's your choice soldier, you can either go to Northern Ireland and fight against American money or you can go to Iraqi and fight for Bush money."
Soldier. "But I thought I had joined the British Army."

[bigAK]

can't figure out the pentagon's motives behind this one, but scary scheiss for sure:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/climatecha...153530,00.html

Now the Pentagon tells Bush: climate change will destroy us

· Secret report warns of rioting and nuclear war
· Britain will be 'Siberian' in less than 20 years
· Threat to the world is greater than terrorism

Mark Townsend and Paul Harris in New York
Sunday February 22, 2004
The Observer

Climate change over the next 20 years could result in a global catastrophe costing millions of lives in wars and natural disasters.

A secret report, suppressed by US defence chiefs and obtained by The Observer, warns that major European cities will be sunk beneath rising seas as Britain is plunged into a 'Siberian' climate by 2020. Nuclear conflict, mega-droughts, famine and widespread rioting will erupt across the world.

The document predicts that abrupt climate change could bring the planet to the edge of anarchy as countries develop a nuclear threat to defend and secure dwindling food, water and energy supplies. The threat to global stability vastly eclipses that of terrorism, say the few experts privy to its contents.

'Disruption and conflict will be endemic features of life,' concludes the Pentagon analysis. 'Once again, warfare would define human life.'

The findings will prove humiliating to the Bush administration, which has repeatedly denied that climate change even exists. Experts said that they will also make unsettling reading for a President who has insisted national defence is a priority.

The report was commissioned by influential Pentagon defence adviser Andrew Marshall, who has held considerable sway on US military thinking over the past three decades. He was the man behind a sweeping recent review aimed at transforming the American military under Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld.

Climate change 'should be elevated beyond a scientific debate to a US national security concern', say the authors, Peter Schwartz, CIA consultant and former head of planning at Royal Dutch/Shell Group, and Doug Randall of the California-based Global Business Network.

An imminent scenario of catastrophic climate change is 'plausible and would challenge United States national security in ways that should be considered immediately', they conclude. As early as next year widespread flooding by a rise in sea levels will create major upheaval for millions.

Last week the Bush administration came under heavy fire from a large body of respected scientists who claimed that it cherry-picked science to suit its policy agenda and suppressed studies that it did not like. Jeremy Symons, a former whistleblower at the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), said that suppression of the report for four months was a further example of the White House trying to bury the threat of climate change.

Senior climatologists, however, believe that their verdicts could prove the catalyst in forcing Bush to accept climate change as a real and happening phenomenon. They also hope it will convince the United States to sign up to global treaties to reduce the rate of climatic change.

A group of eminent UK scientists recently visited the White House to voice their fears over global warming, part of an intensifying drive to get the US to treat the issue seriously. Sources have told The Observer that American officials appeared extremely sensitive about the issue when faced with complaints that America's public stance appeared increasingly out of touch.

One even alleged that the White House had written to complain about some of the comments attributed to Professor Sir David King, Tony Blair's chief scientific adviser, after he branded the President's position on the issue as indefensible.

Among those scientists present at the White House talks were Professor John Schellnhuber, former chief environmental adviser to the German government and head of the UK's leading group of climate scientists at the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research. He said that the Pentagon's internal fears should prove the 'tipping point' in persuading Bush to accept climatic change.

Sir John Houghton, former chief executive of the Meteorological Office - and the first senior figure to liken the threat of climate change to that of terrorism - said: 'If the Pentagon is sending out that sort of message, then this is an important document indeed.'

Bob Watson, chief scientist for the World Bank and former chair of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, added that the Pentagon's dire warnings could no longer be ignored.

'Can Bush ignore the Pentagon? It's going be hard to blow off this sort of document. Its hugely embarrassing. After all, Bush's single highest priority is national defence. The Pentagon is no wacko, liberal group, generally speaking it is conservative. If climate change is a threat to national security and the economy, then he has to act. There are two groups the Bush Administration tend to listen to, the oil lobby and the Pentagon,' added Watson.

'You've got a President who says global warming is a hoax, and across the Potomac river you've got a Pentagon preparing for climate wars. It's pretty scary when Bush starts to ignore his own government on this issue,' said Rob Gueterbock of Greenpeace.

Already, according to Randall and Schwartz, the planet is carrying a higher population than it can sustain. By 2020 'catastrophic' shortages of water and energy supply will become increasingly harder to overcome, plunging the planet into war. They warn that 8,200 years ago climatic conditions brought widespread crop failure, famine, disease and mass migration of populations that could soon be repeated.

Randall told The Observer that the potential ramifications of rapid climate change would create global chaos. 'This is depressing stuff,' he said. 'It is a national security threat that is unique because there is no enemy to point your guns at and we have no control over the threat.'

Randall added that it was already possibly too late to prevent a disaster happening. 'We don't know exactly where we are in the process. It could start tomorrow and we would not know for another five years,' he said.

'The consequences for some nations of the climate change are unbelievable. It seems obvious that cutting the use of fossil fuels would be worthwhile.'

So dramatic are the report's scenarios, Watson said, that they may prove vital in the US elections. Democratic frontrunner John Kerry is known to accept climate change as a real problem. Scientists disillusioned with Bush's stance are threatening to make sure Kerry uses the Pentagon report in his campaign.

The fact that Marshall is behind its scathing findings will aid Kerry's cause. Marshall, 82, is a Pentagon legend who heads a secretive think-tank dedicated to weighing risks to national security called the Office of Net Assessment. Dubbed 'Yoda' by Pentagon insiders who respect his vast experience, he is credited with being behind the Department of Defence's push on ballistic-missile defence.

Symons, who left the EPA in protest at political interference, said that the suppression of the report was a further instance of the White House trying to bury evidence of climate change. 'It is yet another example of why this government should stop burying its head in the sand on this issue.'

Symons said the Bush administration's close links to high-powered energy and oil companies was vital in understanding why climate change was received sceptically in the Oval Office. 'This administration is ignoring the evidence in order to placate a handful of large energy and oil companies,' he added.

[Viva]

I'm sure there are some you you maggots that don't really know what the fack this thread is all about, i.e., what is science? To put it simply, science is a way of dealing with the world around us. It is a way of baffling the uninitiated with incomprehensible jargon. It is a way of obtaining FAT government-sponsored grants. It is a way of achieving mastery over the physical world by threatening it with destruction.

Science represents mankind's deepest aspirations- aspirations to power, to wealth, to the satisfaction of sheer animal lusts. The cornerstone of modern science is the scientific method. Scientists first formulate hypotheses, or predictions, about nature. Then, they perform experimentsto test their hypotheses. There are two forms of scientific method, the inductive and the deductive:

INDUCTIVE

Formulate hypothesis
Apply for grant
Perform experiments or gather data to test hypothesis
Alter data to fit hypothesis
Publish

DEDUCTIVE

Formulate hypothesis
Apply for grant
Perform experiments or gather data to test hypothesis
Revise hypothesis to fit data
Backdate revise hypothesis
Publish


"Back off, I'm a scientist." Dude from Ghostbusters

[bad_roo]

Originally posted by TJ.Brk
Guys all politicians whether they are Mayors, Congressman, Senators, or President's

When you get to be President you get a free grocer's apostrophe too. Such are the trapping's of high office.