One of my pet peevs involves replacing well qualified people with political appointees. Not only do such actions politicize everyday events cronyism decouples experience and pragmaticism from effective response. With time, such positions devolve into stepping stones for their occupants. Starting in his first term, the Bush adminstration has started a worrisome trend of appointing lobbyists as regulators.

Recent examples include Katrina-FEMA disaster, DHS pork projects, and theft from domestic policy advisors.

For 2007, the EPA becomes the latest victim of "reform".

• the 2007 library services budget request is cut $2 million from the $2.5 million requested.
• In setting national air-quality standards, political appointees will have a greater role. "Policy-relevant" science will replace embarrassing facts from interfering with policy goals. Policy and science will most likely be given equal weight.
• New U.S. Geological Survey rules will avoid having scientists making scientific pronouncements that go against Bush policy and beliefs. All scientific papers will be vetted first before going public.

Questions for debate.

1) Would you view these changes as a form of censureship? Why or why not?

2) What are your feelings about increased government involvment and their ability to limit information?

3) Do you see any advantages such a union could bring?

4) Do you feel cronyism is rampant or under control?

1) Would you view these changes as a form of censureship? Why or why not?

Yes and no. Yes on that it does cut science out of the picture in many regards, and no if it means the politicians that will vet the info happen to be well educated in the science they are trying to replace with politics, I mean if a politician can do the job of a chemist and a geologist why even have them.

2) What are your feelings about increased government involvment and their ability to limit information?

Well it means that to me a certain party, or lobby, or whatever you would like to call it, personally I reference it as garbage, is rather scared about information effecting a bottom line, and that line is more important then other things, the earth chiefly.

3) Do you see any advantages such a union could bring?

It would only work in my opinion again if the politicians that vet the info rely on the science really for making decisions relating to environmental issues, not some companies bottom line, its a short term sell out with long term consequences.

4) Do you feel cronyism is rampant or under control?

I think ignorance is rampant.

1) Would you view these changes as a form of censoreship? Why or why not?

Absolutely- it is silly to consider it anything BUT censorship of science- big "duh" here- that is why we have the demonization of the scientist and academic elite- they are just plain smarter than the conservatives in power, and they know it- and it really bugs the lobbyists appointed to <ahem> "oversee" things that directly affect thier buddies' bottom line.

2) What are your feelings about increased government involvment and their ability to limit information?

Unethical, immoral and dangerous- politics at it's worst- ignoring a problem because a company may lose money is the second worst way to determine public policy- using religious beliefs is the worst- and in GW's regime's case - it is often a case of both.

3) Do you see any advantages such a union could bring?

None, zip nada. There is absolutely no postive thing lobbyists in place of educated pro's in these positions- just plain wrong- how do you defend somethign like this even?

4) Do you feel cronyism is rampant or under control?

"Brownie is doing a heck of a job" would be the best answer possible to that one.

Well its not just that. Take any branch or scientific discipline. To work in that field typically requires the laborious task of completing years of education, laborious used very loosely in that you wont be doing much actually for science save learning about it for years of such education. Point being people typically have to learn this, they are not born with some intrinsic knowledge of say how to build a car. Speaking of cars, a good example is mechanics, who take advantage of people that do not know anything really about that technology to make a buck, moreover I seriously doubt a politician will really posses fully the knowledge more often then not to make a good summary of a scientific document, report, or generally anything, research, experimentation, whatever you would have it called.

Yet, anything then that the scientific community may produce in regards to say environmental issues, which is very complex simply because of the scope pertaining to the subject then would not only have to satisfy the scientific community related to such via peer review, you have to be able to pass it past some politician that in my mind does not have to posses intense knowledge of whatever it is they are to vet.

In simple points typically on this site, may of the people against global warming have no real clue or grasp of the science behind it, its typically alarmism or the suns just getting hotter. They cannot envision the idea that billions of people producing carbon dioxide and the relating impact that has on our environment because of what carbon dioxide does in aspects of it, its either that or it has to do with religion or making money, to staples of the current gop mindset and an amazing move to gag the epa.

Here are to sample documents to read, some of my favorite links actually, just read them for a second, and I will let you know that scientific papers and study becomes far more complex then this, and yet we would allow people with little to no working knowledge of such be the judge of it.

Link 1
Link 2

Questions for debate.

1) Would you view these changes as a form of censureship? Why or why not?
Not sure what “Policy-relevant" science will replace embarrassing facts from interfering with policy goals”. What “facts” are we speaking of. Al Gore global warming???

2) What are your feelings about increased government involvment and their ability to limit information?

Scientists has lots of forums and I don’t see this as a limit to debate. The scientific press for example is heavily biased toward the “global warming” view which IMO is far from proved. Is this a form of censorship – you bet. IMO the EPA has been less than effective in any case under numerous administrations. We did not sign the ridiculous Kyoto Treaty under Clinton so why is it so popular to blame Bush for doing likewise? Should we invest 400 billion on CO2 reduction when it is VERY clear it will have no effect on global warming – even if the theory is correct? I think not.

The like you posted gave very little info on the documents in these libraries. What exactly are they? Any idea?

The point I am trying to make is that global warming has been researched for sometime now. If nothing there existed in reality to support this "alarmism" it would not exist. Scientists do not survive in or people in that profession do not survive producing garbage or false results. What point would they have to do such anyways? What could they get from it? Not much, being all the money would be poured moreover into new technology rather then peoples pockets. Grants typically do not make people rich, and are typically giving to groups to conduct studies, and related equipment. In fact, I don’t know of many scientists that have gotten rich over global warming alarmism, but for some people money is not all that exists in reality.

IN fact, I would bet it would be safer in regards to simply wanting to be rich as a scientist to not want to change our current infrastructure, simply because much more understanding of fossil fuel based technology exists vs. non fossil fuel, which does not hardly exist period.

To beat global warming would to simply to be grasping the natural world, developing strategies that in essence coexist or get the chemistry right. I have been to very polluted places in the world, were getting heavy metals in the blood is not that uncommon, clouds from burning oil and related, a place where the air can make you puke and your sweat is more oily then it should be ever, more akin to sweat that could run an automobile. The smog and rings of crud, its all rather sick, and I think if you actually forced people into that reality for a bit they may want to change from simply that.

Bottom line is science overall is about fact, not fiction. Of course many times over ideas in science are fiction first, but are typically derived of fact then researched via the scientific method for factual viability.
We can have the exact same world without fossil fuels, one is people do not understand anything past the "alarmism" and two don’t care to learn. Beyond this its really people in power that don’t want to change because they do not want to lose power, what motivates some trillion dollar oil tycoon to give up his life? I would say more often then not its never going to happen, thus big oil lobby and attempted destructions of institutions like the EPA to protect such, what’s even more disgusting about is that we have to support radical Islam with this money, being I don’t know how much money the ME in general would be making without oil.

To another point, why is it so easy to think every other group but the one you belong to is just running some scam for money, for the most part I simply delegate it as he who smelt it dealt it really.

Anyone that thinks that "global warming" is far from proved

A) Doesn't read science journals, nor understand the nature of science at all

Doesn't live in the Arctic- believe me, you will not find one single person in Alaska, conservative or liberal, that thinks that "global warming" is "far from proved"- it is affecting our food, our climate, every single aspect of our lives these days. It is here,and we are the ones already feeling it.

The only DEBATE AMONGST REAL SCIENTISTS- is NOT IF global warming is proved- it is if man causes it- that is the only place there is a real scientific debate.

And Ted- I think that exemplifies the real lack of understanding about what modern science even is- it is NOT "biased"- if it is- and when it does happen- if the findings are biased, and not subjective- then the experiment will not be repeatable, and it will be quickly disproven.

Science is wrong, BUT- the great thing about modern science is that for it to be "real" science- is peer review. So- any science that IS NOT a true representation that they present- is easily disproved later.

That is why folks like Pat Robertson, Rush Limbaugh, GW and thier ilk HATE science so much- it so often conflicts with "the way things ought to be" instead of reality.

Much like the JH study on war dead- the ONLY scientific study ever done- SO- instead of going out and trying to show JH was wrong- they start trying to dirty the rep of the scientists, because they know, deep down in thier dark hearts- that if they try to disprove it SCIENTIFICALLY- it will only succeed in proving the position of the very study they hate.

The only answer the right wingers have to science these days is just lot's of hot air- which, of course, thier minions so quickly buy, hook, line and sinker.

Ya Ted, Al Gore is smarter than you or I- it is something we have to live with I suppose - and, on top of that, he backs up lot's of what he says with REAL science- NOT media. There is a difference, and the neo-cons hate it like no other.

1) Not entirely. Some "science" needs vetting before it is "unleashed" on the public. See also DDT
2) I disapprove of the Government being involved in things short of tax collection and protection so I'll pass on this question.
3) I don't really understand this question - specifically what union?
4) Rampant and no doubt about to get worse - see also Jack Murtha.

What would some politician know about DDT if it were some brand new substance? My guess is not much, how about we ask or write a letter to every politician and ask them to write a paragraph on dark matter, or what’s the definition of escape velocity, or how about name ten elements from the periodic table, or what is the electronic configuration of carbon and when it reacts with oxygen(2) and becomes carbon dioxide is that reaction exo or endothermic, and what the heck is ATP, and why does physics still use the ideal gas law giving the notion of entropy, that one should be a bread winner and prove a point huh?

What does Jack Murtha have to do with the Epa?

So who would fund the EPA, do you favor tax money being spent on say police or how about some war that is going nowhere, or maybe some overhead funds on a move to spend tax money on the religious right.

I don't think the OP is worried about what information a politician gets regarding science. I was under the impression the OP was more interested in what "scientific" information "We" were getting. In the case of DDT we got junk science and our government acted on that junk science.

I also felt the OP was speaking in broad terms about cronyism and I responded in kind showing that Ms Pelosi was doing similar cronyistic (yes, I just made that word up - please feel free to use it) things. This is how Mr Murtha came to be mentioned.

Could you predict any possible advantages or potential for positive social engineering?

Examples include current views about the toxicity of mercury, DDT pesticides, more monitoring of petrochemicals ext. I'm after ideas that may benefit from the pairing of scientists with politicians.

My error. What I meant to say is it is not conclusive that “climate change” is the result of human industrial activity. What you might be interested to note is that the world was as warm as its predicted to get this century in the century or two before the little ice age. It was called the Medieval Warm Period and had nothing to do with human activity. What I don’t buy is that it is all the fault of CO2 or that we can do much about it with the silly Kyoto Treaty – at a cost of 400 billion.


http://www2.sunysuffolk.edu/mandias/lia/vi...during_mwp.html


http://www.co2science.org/scripts/CO2Scien...l/littlemwp.jsp

A- okay- yes, that is indeed open to debate- the warming trend has been proven, the reason has not.

[quote name='BaphometsAdvocate' date='Jan 4 2007, 06:15 AM' post='203873']
[quote name='Trouble' post='203501' date='Dec 28 2006, 05:06 PM']
Questions for debate.
1) Would you view these changes as a form of censureship? Why or why not?

2) What are your feelings about increased government involvment and their ability to limit information?

3) Do you see any advantages such a union could bring?

4) Do you feel cronyism is rampant or under control?
[/quote]
1) Not entirely. Some "science" needs vetting before it is "unleashed" on the public. See also DDT


The problem here- is that it was MEDIA that made policy NOT science- SHE published a book, SHE did NOT publish in a peer review journal- it was NEVER science- it was media- and, in fact, the EPA did start lookng for ACTUAL published scientists- and by the time REAL SCIENCE, NOT MEDIA came to play- the damage was done-

and, in fact, I would say that mirrors the problem now- GW wants to reject science, embrace media (like Limbaugh and other right wing talking heads) but ignore science- I think it is EXACTLY the same thing that led to the DDT fiasco.


What we need is this- if it is a science based issue- like DDT- then all media should be rejected by law.

Decisions like this should be made on the basis of peer reviewed science- with it's numerous checks and balances to abuse- see the cold fusion and cloning controversies when someone has doctored the evidence- it just gets rooted out so quickly.

Once again- I go to the John Hopkins study on the Iraq war dead- we have science from JH- peer reviewed, debatable on science alone, findings- yet, not ONE rebuttal of this study using SCIENCE- just beliefs and media. In fact, there is NO science based rebuttal to this date.

Benefits of scientists and politicians...

I supose one could look at tabacco and see how the scientist and politicians could have done the right thing but ultimately failed in two ways. In the first they understated the dangers and implemented horribly weak policies to curb the sale to minors. Then after decades of pointless legislation and useless warnings the ridiculous penalties were levied against big tabacco when the US Gov (read politicians) were at least as complicit as big tobacco.

Then one could look the Manhattan Project and see a melding of politics and science. Certainly a case could be made that this was disasterous combination. Ultimately the results are undeniable. So it can, and does work.

Ultimately with the right motives and needs science and politics can do wonderous things. However, when there are ulterior motives and agendas complete chaos can ensue. DDT is a very good example of junk science promoting scare tactics that lead to political legislation to the detriment of so many.

If you turn on your sink, in a second or so the water pouring into the sink will in turn start to have symmetry, if you break this symmetry by applying more water or less from the faucet you will have a break in this symmetry followed by a new symmetry, all of course governed by natural laws.

Now lets take the earth. Previous to all the tons of CO2 being put into the atmosphere by humans. Do you think possibly that weather patterns, development of life, geological formations, the motion in the ocean, etc... May have something to do with these natural laws conduction themselves over space and time, I would say so, or think that at any rate.

So now lets add billons of humans producing an amount of CO2 into this system, did we expect or not think that natural laws that govern matter and energy and there interactions was going to make such exempt?

Now of course its going to have its impact, and typically what many are pointing to is higher concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere will in turn keep more energy coming from the sun, that big bright star, in our planet, do you think natural laws are some how going to make an exception for that, no sir, they are pretty automatic actually.

So what it generally means is that more energy will be kept in our environment, the planet earth, this is turn is going to have an impact, such as changes to weather patterns, maybe more tornadoes in one area, less in another, maybe some places will become deserts in time, while other changes occur here, bottom line is more energy trapped in earth means change to our system.

So idea for the "greenhouse" gas is just that. The higher the concentration of greenhouse gases in our atmosphere, the more energy kept in our system, and this will in turn cause a change to that system.

Now I know it may be hard to think how could people do that, well its rather simple, previous to people, billions of tons of CO2 did not happen to be in production heading to our atmosphere, its going to have an impact, its simple, its just trying to figure out what that impact is going to be, that will be that hard part.

Science in general is pretty much in heavy agreement that global warming is coming, typically from fossil fuel use, because a byproduct of it is CO2, again from the concentration of use we are talking billions of tons, pretty much every year, compiled over years.

The science is there for anyone to look at, and dispute. If global warming had nothing to support it, no backbone, it would not exist. I mean fossil fuels are hydrocarbons, are use of such is basically just producing again billions of tons of CO2 into the earth in a way that was not occurring previous to doing such, simply put after that such is going to have an impact on our system, what this will be who knows at this point, the idea is already noticeable easily on the earth already, its going to come on pretty fast me thinks.

If you don’t want to change because of economic reasons, environmental collapse will in turn cause far more destruction to economies then any change to stop global warming would ever cost, and not just in money, what if food production dropped by 15% in just one year? What if types of bacteria or insect life is allowed to move into new ecosystems? Tons of what ifs overall.

Silent Spring
New Ice Age
Peltdown Man
Shroud Of Turin
Tasaday Tribe

The list could go on and on. There has been a lot of Chicken Littling regarding world temperature. You can't blame people for being skeptical when you consider less than 20 years ago the world was supposed to freeze.

No, I agree 100%, always question everything, but at least do it with integrity. Global warming is not some new thing either. The basic premise of it can be demonstrated in experiments a middle school student could pull off over and over with the same results. We have a way of life, this way of life is producing untold amounts of CO2 that was not occurring naturally before we started, at least not for a rather long time. So in essence we are changing the planet that way slowly but surely. The science behind this is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, or energy, coming from the sun enters earth, and higher concentrations of a "greenhouse" gas like CO2 means more energy staying in then previously. More energy is going to have an impact, just like turning your heater up, its pretty simple overall, not some huge idea right there. The more complex avenue is trying to digest factually what it all means, or how its going to play out end game speaking.

Personally, I know right now that if America wanted to, within a decade we could be off fossil fuel pretty much, and have the same lifestyle, I just don’t know why people would risk it save ignorance on the subject. Another view is this, what if the science of it all is 100% on the money, when things get so bad you cant dispute it anymore, which would be really bad, what the heck are people to do, there would be death in numbers so great, because mass extinctions would be occurring.

The issue is not is there ‘global warming” because that is a certainty and so is the fact that CO2 is a “greenhouse gas”. The issue is how much of the temperature rice we see is do to CO2 and therefore human activity and this is not at all certain. Some say its all CO2 and our fault and others (me included) say it is not that clear. We KNOW the world actually warmed up MORE than today or even what we expect this cenury as a worst case in the Medieval Warm Period

http://www.climatechangeissues.com/files/P...05mckitrick.pdf

http://www.technologyreview.com/Energy/13423/

One thing should be made clear: There's no such thing as an "apolitical" government official. There are careerists, and there are temporary appointees - that's it. And it's not as though the careerists are immune from political bias or institutional self-interest. Far from it. It may very well be that what this article refers to as "political" appointees could in fact provide some much-needed balance to the overall process. Either way, it's not censorship. Censorship is when the government tries to stifle independent voices in the nongovernmental sector, not when government regulates itself. Now one can argue that its regulations of itself are wise or unwise, but in nowise can they be considered censorship.

Update
Government Scientists Accuse Bush Administration of Interfering, Misleading on Climate Change

Some of it pertains to the EPA, much of it doesn't but this represents the first backlash at the House level to shed light over the last year of energy policy.