Full Version: Administration obscures Science
Winner, Best Topic: Science & Technology 2003-2004
QUOTE
Today, more than 60 leading scientists—including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents—issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. According to the scientists, the Bush administration has, among other abuses, suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.
Preeminent Scientists Protest Bush Administration's Misuse of Science
Apparently, the Bush administration is charged with distorting scientific material to fit political ends. In response:
QUOTE
White House science adviser John Marburger said he found the report "somewhat disappointing ... because it makes some sweeping generalizations about policy in this administration that are based on a random selection of incidents and issues."
The questions for debate are:
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
Stories:
Scientists: Bush administration distorts research
'Concerned Scientists' Accuse Administration of Manipulation (Fox News)
FYI- we had a similar debate here. I closed the old one & we may resume the debate here. 
In the Suskind book on Treasury Sec ONeill he discusses how president Bush reverses his campaign pledge on regulating carbon dioxide (humiliating his EPA administrator who had been promoting it) and backs out of Kyoto altogether.
The next day ONeill reads in the paper that the white house conducted a "cabinet level review" on the issues and decided to change course. Problem is that it must have been a review that neither the EPA administrator (who was floored) and the Treasury secretary never heard of.
I remember Bush making some conciliatory grumbles about global warming early on and even called it a threat to mankind. Seems that somebody changed his mind but it wasnt his own EPA or the scientific community.
cue twilight zone music, enter Cheney.
The next day ONeill reads in the paper that the white house conducted a "cabinet level review" on the issues and decided to change course. Problem is that it must have been a review that neither the EPA administrator (who was floored) and the Treasury secretary never heard of.
I remember Bush making some conciliatory grumbles about global warming early on and even called it a threat to mankind. Seems that somebody changed his mind but it wasnt his own EPA or the scientific community.
cue twilight zone music, enter Cheney.
To be honest, the accusation is pretty vague. AND 60 scientists are a miniscule amount to be protesting this.
Hmm...checking out their linked "report"
So scientists are concerned about military intelligence?
You go to their homepage...Union of Concerned Scientists and we discover what the leading issues are there...
-Genetically modified foods
-Bush wants weapons in space
-Global warming (which has been called into question by other worthy scientists..)
And their mission statement:
We should consider the source, certainly. It doesn't mean their concerns are invalid, but their motivation might be.
Hmm...checking out their linked "report"
QUOTE
1. There is a well-established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human
health, public safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.
health, public safety, and community well-being. Incidents involve air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, drug resistant bacteria, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.
So scientists are concerned about military intelligence?
QUOTE
2. There is strong documentation of a wideranging effort to manipulate the government’s scientifi c advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration’s political agenda. These actions include: appointing underqualifi ed individuals to important advisory roles including childhood lead poisoning prevention and reproductive health; applying political litmus tests that have no bearing on a nominee’s expertise or advisory role; appointing a non-scientist to a senior position in the president’s scientifi c advisory staff; and dismissing highly qualifi ed scientifi c advisors.
You go to their homepage...Union of Concerned Scientists and we discover what the leading issues are there...
-Genetically modified foods
-Bush wants weapons in space
-Global warming (which has been called into question by other worthy scientists..)
And their mission statement:
QUOTE
The Union of Concerned Scientists is a nonprofit partnership of scientists and citizens combining rigorous scientific analysis, innovative policy development and effective citizen advocacy to achieve practical environmental solutions.
Established in 1969, we seek to ensure that all people have clean air, energy and transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable manner. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Sound science guides our efforts to secure changes in government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices that will protect and improve the health of our environment globally, nationally and in communities throughout the United States. In short, UCS seeks a great change in humanity's stewardship of the earth.
Established in 1969, we seek to ensure that all people have clean air, energy and transportation, as well as food that is produced in a safe and sustainable manner. We strive for a future that is free from the threats of global warming and nuclear war, and a planet that supports a rich diversity of life. Sound science guides our efforts to secure changes in government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices that will protect and improve the health of our environment globally, nationally and in communities throughout the United States. In short, UCS seeks a great change in humanity's stewardship of the earth.
We should consider the source, certainly. It doesn't mean their concerns are invalid, but their motivation might be.
It would seem to me, Amlord, that a substantive debate might be had concerning the content of this report, along with the Waxman report from 2003, regardless of the motivations of the source - which are certainly unknown, but are equally certain to be grist for partisan sniping.
It is clear that the Bush administration has a strange view of what the word science means.
• Are any parents here unconcerned by this, from the Waxman report:
• While the jury may still be out on the human contributions to global warming, is this any way to deal with it? This is a list of amendments to the EPA's 2003 Report on the Environment requested by the White House (from the UCS report):
The report immediately continues:
• What about mercury emissions?
I don't understand how stuff like this doesn't concern everybody. Are apologists for this administration simply hiding their heads in the sand?
• Abstinence - it works, at least if you ignore the evidence and change the standards of measuring:
• Here's a good one:
• Dubious appointments?
• I like this bit:
I'll end this here. I urge everyone to download the actual report, which can be found in the link to the UCS website in the first post of this thread, and to research the extensive footnotes therein. And I repeat - how is it that anyone can be unconcerned by this?
It is clear that the Bush administration has a strange view of what the word science means.
• Are any parents here unconcerned by this, from the Waxman report:
QUOTE
After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children’s brains.
• While the jury may still be out on the human contributions to global warming, is this any way to deal with it? This is a list of amendments to the EPA's 2003 Report on the Environment requested by the White House (from the UCS report):
QUOTE
• The deletion of a temperature record covering 1,000 years in order to, according to the EPA memo, emphasize “a recent, limited analysis [which] supports the administration’s favored message.” 10
• The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.11
• The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.12
• The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”13
• The removal of any reference to the NAS review—requested by the White House itself —that confirmed human activity is contributing to climate change.11
• The insertion of a reference to a discredited study of temperature records funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.12
• The elimination of the summary statement— noncontroversial within the science community that studies climate change—that “climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.”13
The report immediately continues:
QUOTE
According to the internal EPA memo, White House officials demanded so many qualifying words such as “potentially” and “may” that the result would have been to insert “uncertainty… where there is essentially none.”
In a process now-departed EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has since described as “brutal,” the entire section on climate change was ultimately deleted from the version released for public comment. According to internal EPA documents and interviews with EPA researchers, the agency staff chose this path rather than compromising their credibility by misrepresenting the scientific consensus. Doing otherwise, as one current, high-ranking EPA official puts it, would “poorly represent the science and ultimately undermine
the credibility of the EPA and the White House.”
In a process now-departed EPA Administrator Christine Todd Whitman has since described as “brutal,” the entire section on climate change was ultimately deleted from the version released for public comment. According to internal EPA documents and interviews with EPA researchers, the agency staff chose this path rather than compromising their credibility by misrepresenting the scientific consensus. Doing otherwise, as one current, high-ranking EPA official puts it, would “poorly represent the science and ultimately undermine
the credibility of the EPA and the White House.”
• What about mercury emissions?
QUOTE
The Bush administration has long attemped to avoid issuing new standards to regulate mercury emissions by coal-fired power plants based on Maximum Achievable Control Technology (MACT), as required by the Clean Air Act.29 Mercury is a neurotoxin that can cause brain damage and harm reproduction in women and wildlife; coal-fired power plants are the nation’s largest source of mercury air emissions, emitting about 48 tons annually.30
As a prelude to the current debate, published accounts to date have documented that senior
Bush officials suppressed and sought to manipulate government information about mercury contained in an EPA report on children’s health and the environment. As the EPA readied the report for completion in May 2002, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the OSTP began a lengthy review of the document. In February 2003, after nine months of delay by the White House, a frustrated EPA official leaked the draft report to the Wall Street Journal, including including Journal its finding that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16 and 49 have mercury levels in the blood that could lead to reduced IQ and motor skills in their offspring.31
The finding provides strong evidence in direct contradiction to the administration’s desired
policy of reducing regulation on coal-fired power plants and was, many sources suspect, the reason for the lengthy suppression by the White House. On February 24, 2003, just days after the leak, the EPA’s report was finally released to the public. 32 Perhaps most troubling about this incident is that the report may never have surfaced at all had it not been leaked to the press.
As a prelude to the current debate, published accounts to date have documented that senior
Bush officials suppressed and sought to manipulate government information about mercury contained in an EPA report on children’s health and the environment. As the EPA readied the report for completion in May 2002, the White House Office of Management and Budget and the OSTP began a lengthy review of the document. In February 2003, after nine months of delay by the White House, a frustrated EPA official leaked the draft report to the Wall Street Journal, including including Journal its finding that 8 percent of women between the ages of 16 and 49 have mercury levels in the blood that could lead to reduced IQ and motor skills in their offspring.31
The finding provides strong evidence in direct contradiction to the administration’s desired
policy of reducing regulation on coal-fired power plants and was, many sources suspect, the reason for the lengthy suppression by the White House. On February 24, 2003, just days after the leak, the EPA’s report was finally released to the public. 32 Perhaps most troubling about this incident is that the report may never have surfaced at all had it not been leaked to the press.
I don't understand how stuff like this doesn't concern everybody. Are apologists for this administration simply hiding their heads in the sand?
• Abstinence - it works, at least if you ignore the evidence and change the standards of measuring:
QUOTE
The fact that the Bush administration ignores the scientific evidence, troubling though that is, is not the primary concern of this report. Rather, it is the fact that the Bush administration went further by distorting the U.S. Centers for Disease Control’s (CDC) science-based performance measures to test whether abstinence-only programs were proving effective, such as charting the birth rate of female program participants.42
In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.43
In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies.44 All five of the programs identified in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website.
In place of such established measures, the Bush administration has required the CDC to track only participants’ program attendance and attitudes, measures designed to obscure the lack of efficacy of abstinence-only programs.43
In addition to distorting performance measures, the Bush administration has suppressed other information at the CDC at odds with its preferred policies. At the behest of higher-ups in the Bush administration, according to a source inside the CDC, the agency was forced to discontinue a project called “Programs that Work,” which identified sex education programs found to be effective in scientific studies.44 All five of the programs identified in 2002 involved comprehensive sex education for teenagers and none were abstinence-only programs. In ending the project, the CDC removed all information about these programs from its website.
• Here's a good one:
QUOTE
One particularly dramatic and well-documented case involves Dr. James Zahn, a research microbiologist at the USDA who asserts that he was prohibited on no fewer than 11 occasions from publicizing his research on the potential hazards to human health posed by airborne bacteria resulting from farm wastes.49
Zahn’s research had discovered signifi cant levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinement operations in Iowa and Missouri.50 But, as Zahn recounts, he was repeatedly barred by his superiors from presenting his research at scientific conferences in 2002.51 In at least one instance, a message from a supervisor advised Zahn that, “politically sensitive and controversial issues require discretion.”52
Zahn says USDA officials told him his work was being discouraged because it dealt with human health, an issue outside his unit’s mission.53 Yet the website for the research unit at the USDA where Zahn worked states that its mission “is to solve critical problems in the swine production industry that impact production efficiency, environmental quality, and human health.”54 Zahn had accidentally stumbled on the issue of airborne antibiotic resistance while researching a related topic and, prior to the start of the Bush administration, was initially encouraged by his supervisors to pursue the work. But he says that with the change in administration, he soon came to feel that his research was being
suppressed because it was perceived to be politically unpalatable.
Zahn’s research had discovered signifi cant levels of antibiotic-resistant bacteria in the air near hog confinement operations in Iowa and Missouri.50 But, as Zahn recounts, he was repeatedly barred by his superiors from presenting his research at scientific conferences in 2002.51 In at least one instance, a message from a supervisor advised Zahn that, “politically sensitive and controversial issues require discretion.”52
Zahn says USDA officials told him his work was being discouraged because it dealt with human health, an issue outside his unit’s mission.53 Yet the website for the research unit at the USDA where Zahn worked states that its mission “is to solve critical problems in the swine production industry that impact production efficiency, environmental quality, and human health.”54 Zahn had accidentally stumbled on the issue of airborne antibiotic resistance while researching a related topic and, prior to the start of the Bush administration, was initially encouraged by his supervisors to pursue the work. But he says that with the change in administration, he soon came to feel that his research was being
suppressed because it was perceived to be politically unpalatable.
• Dubious appointments?
QUOTE
In several cases, the Bush administration’s candidates for advisory positions have so lacked qualifications or held such extreme views that they have caused a public outcry. One such case involves the appointment of Dr. W. David Hager to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s (FDA) Reproductive Health Advisory Committee, which advises the agency on contraceptives, abortion, and other potentially controversial medical issues such as hormone replacement therapy. The Bush administration initially suggested that Hager, an
obstetrician-gynecologist with scant credentials and highly partisan political views,30 chair the FDA advisory committee. But, after widespread public outcry, he was installed simply as a committee member. His nomination represents a dramatic departure from any past appointments to this committee. He is best known for co-authoring a book that recommends particular scripture readings as a treatment for premenstrual syndrome31 and, in his private practice, Hager has reportedly refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.32
obstetrician-gynecologist with scant credentials and highly partisan political views,30 chair the FDA advisory committee. But, after widespread public outcry, he was installed simply as a committee member. His nomination represents a dramatic departure from any past appointments to this committee. He is best known for co-authoring a book that recommends particular scripture readings as a treatment for premenstrual syndrome31 and, in his private practice, Hager has reportedly refused to prescribe contraceptives to unmarried women.32
QUOTE
Charges concerning the use of political litmus tests for candidates for scientific advisory positions have been leveled at the National Institute on Drug Abuse. One well-publicized assertion involves Dr. William R. Miller of the University of New Mexico. Miller, a distinguished professor of psychology and psychiatry, the pioneer of a leading substance
abuse treatment, and author of more than 100 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, says that his 2002 interview for a slot on a National Institute on Drug Abuse advisory panel included questions about whether his views were congruent with those held by President Bush and whether he had voted for Bush in 2000. Presumably based on his answers, Miller was denied the appointment.35
abuse treatment, and author of more than 100 articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals, says that his 2002 interview for a slot on a National Institute on Drug Abuse advisory panel included questions about whether his views were congruent with those held by President Bush and whether he had voted for Bush in 2000. Presumably based on his answers, Miller was denied the appointment.35
• I like this bit:
QUOTE
According to Dr. Margaret Scarlett, a former CDC staff member who served in the agency for 15 years, most recently in the Office of HIV/AIDS Policy, “The current administration has instituted an unheard-of level of micromanagement in the programmatic and scientific activities of CDC. We’re seeing a clear substitution of ideology for science and it is causing many committed scientists to leave the agency.”5 Scarlett also points out that,
“Ronald Reagan was very uncomfortable with the issue of sex education and the transmission of HIV, which was still largely stigmatized at the time. Nonetheless, with the help of CDC, his administration got factual information out to every household in the country about the problem. His actions stand in dramatic contrast to the sorry record of the current administration on informing the public about issues related to sex education and HIV transmission.”6
“Ronald Reagan was very uncomfortable with the issue of sex education and the transmission of HIV, which was still largely stigmatized at the time. Nonetheless, with the help of CDC, his administration got factual information out to every household in the country about the problem. His actions stand in dramatic contrast to the sorry record of the current administration on informing the public about issues related to sex education and HIV transmission.”6
I'll end this here. I urge everyone to download the actual report, which can be found in the link to the UCS website in the first post of this thread, and to research the extensive footnotes therein. And I repeat - how is it that anyone can be unconcerned by this?
QUOTE
To be honest, the accusation is pretty vague. AND 60 scientists are a miniscule amount to be protesting this.
Actually, after reading what Quarkhead posted, it looks like all of those accusations are pretty darn specific (These documents had these changes/alterations). Not only that, but these aren't just any 60 scientists, they're leaders in their field:
QUOTE
Including Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, former federal agency directors and university chairs and presidents
Besides, have any scientists since challenged the Union of concerned scientists claims and said that their relations with the Bush administration have been excellent? Are any scientists defending the administration?
A fair and balanced rebuttal (ok, maybe not) as Fox news chimes in.
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112661,00.html
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,112661,00.html
QUOTE
It was quite an ironic charge coming from a self-described activist group whose left-wing, eco-extremist, anti-biotechnology, anti-chemical, anti-nuclear, anti-defense and anti-business screeds embody the very antithesis of the scientific ideal of objectivity.
Wow, now thats unbiased reporting right there. I have never seen anything more fair and balanced in my life (sorry for the sarcasm). I was suprised that the rebuttal didn't even focus on any of the accusations made by the UCS, but was trying to point out political inconsistancy in order to discredit them. So, the strategy, as always: attack the group, not the charges.
Of course, its FOX.
One liners are not good for debating. Please stay on topic and constructive to the topic at hand.
Well, let me take a few more sentences and some server memory to explain this. "Becoming human" seemed to think I approved of the FOX editorial when I really just posted it for interest (and comedy relief as it was clearly knee-jerk).
My "one liner" was really just an effort to explain that I didnt approve of the link I posted, I just thought it was interesting. I hope ive typed enough characters to evade the "one liner" label now.
My "one liner" was really just an effort to explain that I didnt approve of the link I posted, I just thought it was interesting. I hope ive typed enough characters to evade the "one liner" label now.
Heres Bush firing two more scientists today.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...ioethics28.html
Nothing like stacking the jury.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nati...ioethics28.html
Nothing like stacking the jury.
Sorry for the misunderstanding Santa's dad. I knew you did not approve of the article, I just wanted to comment on it. (Its so hard to communicate properly through a computer).
Its good to hear that someone in congress is talking about this. I certainly haven't heard much about it from the liberal television media.
Suppression and Distortion of Research
Here's a good summary of alot of the claims, including more footnotes than you can shake a stick at.
Nah, at this point we do know that global warming is occuring.
Its an IPCC consensus, the uncertainties are what the effects of the warming are going to be.
United States EPA
QUOTE
Some in Congress also have been vocal on the topic
Its good to hear that someone in congress is talking about this. I certainly haven't heard much about it from the liberal television media.
Suppression and Distortion of Research
Here's a good summary of alot of the claims, including more footnotes than you can shake a stick at.
QUOTE(Amlord)
Global warming (which has been called into question by other worthy scientists..)
Nah, at this point we do know that global warming is occuring.
QUOTE
What's Known for Certain?
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
Scientists know for certain that human activities are changing the composition of Earth's atmosphere. Increasing levels of greenhouse gases, like carbon dioxide (CO2 ), in the atmosphere since pre-industrial times have been well documented. There is no doubt this atmospheric buildup of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases is largely the result of human activities.
It's well accepted by scientists that greenhouse gases trap heat in the Earth's atmosphere and tend to warm the planet. By increasing the levels of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere, human activities are strengthening Earth's natural greenhouse effect. The key greenhouse gases emitted by human activities remain in the atmosphere for periods ranging from decades to centuries.
A warming trend of about 1°F has been recorded since the late 19th century. Warming has occurred in both the northern and southern hemispheres, and over the oceans. Confirmation of 20th-century global warming is further substantiated by melting glaciers, decreased snow cover in the northern hemisphere and even warming below ground.
Its an IPCC consensus, the uncertainties are what the effects of the warming are going to be.
QUOTE(EPA)
Global warming poses real risks.
United States EPA
Further to the above (from both BecomingHuman and a couple of points quarkhead raised), Christie Whitman (the Bush-appointed administrator of the EPA) commissioned a comprehensive report on the state of the environment shortly after taking up her post. Before her report was issued in June, 2003, she presented it to the White House for approval.
Far from approving it, they took out a blue pencil and began re-writing it:
For example, the unequivocal sentence "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut entirely and replaced with a waffling paragraph that starts "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future..." In other words: "Global warming? What global warming??"
The week the edited report was finally released by the White House, Christie Whitman resigned because it was "time to return to my home and husband in New Jersey". Did none of the rats deserting the Bush administration's ship of state realize that they had families before they accepted their appointments? Or has that become a euphemism for "I have a conscience"?
Far from approving it, they took out a blue pencil and began re-writing it:
QUOTE
The editing eliminated references to many studies concluding that warming is at least partly caused by rising concentrations of smokestack and tail-pipe emissions and could threaten health and ecosystems.
Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.
Among the deletions were conclusions about the likely human contribution to warming from a 2001 report on climate by the National Research Council that the White House had commissioned and that President Bush had endorsed in speeches that year. White House officials also deleted a reference to a 1999 study showing that global temperatures had risen sharply in the previous decade compared with the last 1,000 years. In its place, administration officials added a reference to a new study, partly financed by the American Petroleum Institute, questioning that conclusion.
For example, the unequivocal sentence "Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment" was cut entirely and replaced with a waffling paragraph that starts "The complexity of the Earth system and the interconnections among its components make it a scientific challenge to document change, diagnose its causes, and develop useful projections of how natural variability and human actions may affect the global environment in the future..." In other words: "Global warming? What global warming??"
QUOTE
An April 29 memorandum circulated among staff members said that after the changes by White House officials, the section on climate "no longer accurately represents scientific consensus on climate change."
Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science."
The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents.
Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.
Another memorandum circulated at the same time said that the easiest course would be to accept the White House revisions but that to do so would taint the agency, because "E.P.A. will take responsibility and severe criticism from the science and environmental communities for poorly representing the science."
The changes were mainly made by the Council on Environmental Quality, although the Office of Management and Budget was also involved, several E.P.A. officials said. It is the second time in a year that the White House has sought to play down global warming in official documents.
Last September, an annual E.P.A. report on air pollution that for six years had contained a section on climate was released without one, and the decision to delete it was made by Bush administration appointees at the agency with White House approval.
The week the edited report was finally released by the White House, Christie Whitman resigned because it was "time to return to my home and husband in New Jersey". Did none of the rats deserting the Bush administration's ship of state realize that they had families before they accepted their appointments? Or has that become a euphemism for "I have a conscience"?
The fact is that there is no consensus on global warming. Bush should have just cherry picked the studies concluding that global warming was no concern and saved the taxpayers the burden of funding a study.
Whitman and Hughes arent the only ones who were supposed to leave "to spend more time with family", they wanted ONeill to say that too but he told Cheney, "Im too old to start lying". That cracks me up.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Feb 29 2004, 04:09 PM)
The fact is that there is no consensus on global warming. Bush should have just cherry picked the studies concluding that global warming was no concern and saved the taxpayers the burden of funding a study.
The fact is that there is a consensus. There is not yet certainty, granted (and may never be beyond enough reasonable doubt to satisfy the balance sheets of American polluters), but the consensus is overwhelming.
It is a consensus reached by the 2,500 scientific members of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, established by the UN and the WMO: "The balance of evidence suggests a discernible human influence on global climate."
It is a consensus reached by over 2,400 scientists in a Statement on Global Climatic Disruption: "Human-induced global climatic change is under way... Our familiarity with the scale, severity, and costs to human welfare of the disruptions that the climatic changes threaten leads us to introduce this note of urgency and to call for early domestic action to reduce U.S. emissions."
It is a consensus reached by the American Geophysical Union in their Position Statement, representing 40,000 members: "Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate... It is virtually certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be warmer... The global climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that change."
It is a consensus reached by over 2,050 physicians and health care professionals in a Statement on Global Climate Change: "Expert scientific analysis shows that there is a discernible human influence on global climate. As physicians and health scientists, we fear that global climate change carries with it significant health, environmental, economic and social risks that can be mitigated through energy efficiency, clean energy production and other emission reduction steps... All human health is ultimately dependent on the health of the biosphere. The emissions that cause climate change have direct impacts on human health due to increased heat, reduced air quality, increases in vector-borne infectious diseases and expanding populations of pest species."
Indeed, this consensus is even accepted by some conscientious business leaders.
Oh - and it's a consensus reached by George W Bush's own EPA-commissioned study, as noted above:
But, you're right, Hugo. Bush could have cited one of the five individuals, paid for by the American Petroleum Institute, the coal industry, and ExxonMobil, who "disagree" with the scientific evidence. Instead, he cut the consensus reached by his own EPA appointees to ribbons.
1) There is no scientific consensus that global warming is occurring and 2) that even if global warming is occurring that it is harmful.
From Richard Lindzen's "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus":
This is a very complex issue, it would be an extreme rarity in science if there was a scientific consensus. Most of the "global warming" in our century occurred before 1940. The Earth actually cooled between 1940 and 1965. There was a spike in the '70's that is not consistent with an incremental change in greenhouse gases. There is plenty of evidence Bush could have used to push his agenda without need for a study, that he was going to ignore if it did not support his agenda. While certainly we should look at a study commissioned by the API with scrutiny, we should do the same with all studies. Lindzen's article points out the political going ons with many of these "scientist" groups. Government organizations are similar to capitalist organizations their members seek to grow the organization to advance their own specific job opportunities and security.
The American Geophysists UNION is contending global warming exists and more studies need to be carried out. I am sure they believe that many of these studies will just coincidentally employ members of the AGU. Wow, an amazing coincidence that their conclusions on the nature of global warming, and future actions neccesary, just happen to enrich their pocketbooks.
From Richard Lindzen's "Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus":
QUOTE
Why, one might wonder, is there such insistence on scientific unanimity on the warming issue? After all, unanimity in science is virtually nonexistent on far less complex matters. Unanimity on an issue as uncertain as "global warming'' would be surprising and suspicious. Moreover, why are the opinions of scientists sought regardless of their field of expertise? Biologists and physicians are rarely asked to endorse some theory in high energy physics. Apparently, when one comes to "global warming,'' any scientist's agreement will do.
This is a very complex issue, it would be an extreme rarity in science if there was a scientific consensus. Most of the "global warming" in our century occurred before 1940. The Earth actually cooled between 1940 and 1965. There was a spike in the '70's that is not consistent with an incremental change in greenhouse gases. There is plenty of evidence Bush could have used to push his agenda without need for a study, that he was going to ignore if it did not support his agenda. While certainly we should look at a study commissioned by the API with scrutiny, we should do the same with all studies. Lindzen's article points out the political going ons with many of these "scientist" groups. Government organizations are similar to capitalist organizations their members seek to grow the organization to advance their own specific job opportunities and security.
The American Geophysists UNION is contending global warming exists and more studies need to be carried out. I am sure they believe that many of these studies will just coincidentally employ members of the AGU. Wow, an amazing coincidence that their conclusions on the nature of global warming, and future actions neccesary, just happen to enrich their pocketbooks.
Lindzen is a bit of a voice crying in the wilderness on this one. Some of his major differences with the mainstream view are in this scientific american article.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=2&catID=2
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID...umber=2&catID=2
I read that Lindzen article when I received my SCIAM in the mail, I remember it pretty well without reading it. I would suggest you read the commentaries in the following issue in which he is destroyed by a string of intelligent attacks by his peers. That notwithstanding, it is ridiculous to fence with scientists in this type of argument. Science is the child of philosophy, and in that spirit good scientists still argue the devil's advocate with each other, only they do it with calculators.
No good science would happen if people didn't argue all possibilities and with intellectual rigor! That is why the Union of Concerned Scientists and any other group would ask its members to maintain their message and not explain the technicalities to the public. The public doesn't understand that people are actively trying to prove Einstein wrong. Einstein was smart, he discovered cool stuff, he is right. That's the depth to which the average non-scientist is willing to go. Displaying the culture of disagreement that is the heart of the scientific community would only confuse and distract the average American (or anyone for that matter) fro mthe big picture. There ARE certain, measurable facts about the environment. You would be hard pressed to get ANY scientist to tell you a cold statement of fact more specific than the general consensus. They speak in possibilities because it is a part of their culture to do so.
So please stop relying on the claims of one scientist to disprove a basic fact: Human development effects the environment in adverse ways. We know this, global warming IS happening and can be measured in the shrinkage of the polar caps. It is not an illusion and it DOESN'T mean that you will always get warmer weather because it is warmer by 1 degree in the North Pole.
Because scientists are debating the extent does not mean that there is no situation at all. Nearly 80 years after Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding we STILL can't nail down the rate compared to the volume. Hubble's Constant is still not pinned down even with modern science.
This does NOT mean that the universe must not be expanding! However, you will not be able to get one scientist to pick a number and stand with it as his/her answer. That's just not the way they work...
And finally, if we take global warming out of this argument we still have a bevy of other scientific data and the subterfuge associated with it...
What of the lead poisoning? Why do Bush's defenders always manage to find one thing they might be able to argue against and then focus on it with blinders?
P.S. By the way, Einstein thought the universe was static, Hubble proved him wrong. Their scientific debate stands as a model of academic progress. However, you still will never hear someone say of their bright child, "yeah, he does well in school, he's a regular Hubble..." My point being that the scientist doesn't matter, only the science does.
P.P.S. Oh yes Amlord, you said:
Well yes, since they ARE military intelligence, one would think they might have an insight into doing it properly. Last time i checked the NAS's phone tapping technology, spy satellites, the software "Carnivore", metal detectors, bomb sniffers, and Global positioning technology were not created by washington bureaucrats or political pundits. Scientists are at the cutting edge of our military and intelligence agencies and if they think we are doing something wrong in either department I, for one, am worried....
No good science would happen if people didn't argue all possibilities and with intellectual rigor! That is why the Union of Concerned Scientists and any other group would ask its members to maintain their message and not explain the technicalities to the public. The public doesn't understand that people are actively trying to prove Einstein wrong. Einstein was smart, he discovered cool stuff, he is right. That's the depth to which the average non-scientist is willing to go. Displaying the culture of disagreement that is the heart of the scientific community would only confuse and distract the average American (or anyone for that matter) fro mthe big picture. There ARE certain, measurable facts about the environment. You would be hard pressed to get ANY scientist to tell you a cold statement of fact more specific than the general consensus. They speak in possibilities because it is a part of their culture to do so.
So please stop relying on the claims of one scientist to disprove a basic fact: Human development effects the environment in adverse ways. We know this, global warming IS happening and can be measured in the shrinkage of the polar caps. It is not an illusion and it DOESN'T mean that you will always get warmer weather because it is warmer by 1 degree in the North Pole.
Because scientists are debating the extent does not mean that there is no situation at all. Nearly 80 years after Hubble proved that the Universe is expanding we STILL can't nail down the rate compared to the volume. Hubble's Constant is still not pinned down even with modern science.
This does NOT mean that the universe must not be expanding! However, you will not be able to get one scientist to pick a number and stand with it as his/her answer. That's just not the way they work...
And finally, if we take global warming out of this argument we still have a bevy of other scientific data and the subterfuge associated with it...
What of the lead poisoning? Why do Bush's defenders always manage to find one thing they might be able to argue against and then focus on it with blinders?
P.S. By the way, Einstein thought the universe was static, Hubble proved him wrong. Their scientific debate stands as a model of academic progress. However, you still will never hear someone say of their bright child, "yeah, he does well in school, he's a regular Hubble..." My point being that the scientist doesn't matter, only the science does.
P.P.S. Oh yes Amlord, you said:
QUOTE
So scientists are concerned about military intelligence?
Well yes, since they ARE military intelligence, one would think they might have an insight into doing it properly. Last time i checked the NAS's phone tapping technology, spy satellites, the software "Carnivore", metal detectors, bomb sniffers, and Global positioning technology were not created by washington bureaucrats or political pundits. Scientists are at the cutting edge of our military and intelligence agencies and if they think we are doing something wrong in either department I, for one, am worried....
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Feb 29 2004, 09:54 PM)
I read that Lindzen article when I received my SCIAM in the mail, I remember it pretty well without reading it. I would suggest you read the commentaries in the following issue in which he is destroyed by a string of intelligent attacks by his peers. That notwithstanding, it is ridiculous to fence with scientists in this type of argument. Science is the child of philosophy, and in that spirit good scientists still argue the devil's advocate with each other, only they do it with calculators.
Lindzen is not by himself at all. You might check out this link here.
What did this petition state?
QUOTE
We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.
The petitions statement on the effect of greenhouse gases?
QUOTE
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Over 17100 scientists signed this petition. GW could have used existing evidence to support his agenda without waisting money on another study.
Global warming, caused by man, is no fact, it is a theory. Not only under the scientific definition of the word theory, but the layman's definition also. Many scientists believe that even if it is occurring it may be caused almost entirely by nature and/or beneficial.
QUOTE
After dropping three national experts in lead poisoning from the Advisory Committee on Childhood Lead Poisoning Prevention, the Department of Health and Human Services appointed several individuals with ties to the lead industry, including a lead industry consultant who had testified that a lead level seven times the current limit is safe for children’s brains.
Any evidence that the statement concerning lead levels is not true? My experience is that there is a large safety margin in government imposed TLV levels of toxins. Would not surprise me at all if a lead level seven times the legal limit is safe for children.
.
QUOTE
The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment,
What! Limiting the amount of greenhouse gases we put in the air would harm the enviroment.
I mean, I could understand that it would limit the amount of pollution we would put in the air, but how could pollution reduction harm the enviroment.
Edited:
QUOTE
Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
Never mind, though I still find that a little hard to believe.
I think I'm going to stick with the EPA on this one.
EPA Global Warming
Just a topic reminder, (Global warming can be found here:
Impending Doom, ...Global Warming will destroy us )
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
First, to show you in another way how ridiculous it is to argue by fencing with scientists:
Here you go, this is a decent list of people who believe in UFO's and almost to the person they have PHD's in physics, some other science, or math..though there are some psychologist types in there it seems. And these people have put a FACE to their names. So, if these people believe in UFO's and have PH.D.'s then UFO's must exist...
Come on! First I can tell you that few self-respecting scientists would sign that petition because it offers ZERO attempts to actually give answers or present counter theories. It is an over-generalized, sweeping statement. It would be academic and professional suicide to state unequivocally that there is no human-caused global warming because there is not yet any proof. Even the most sceptical scientist would say, "I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely." or something to that effect.
Here is one concept that has been argued by scientists. There is clear evidence that the weather has begun to follow the human weekly cycle.
It is statistically undeniable. What is causing it is nearly impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" however it is unlikely that "nature" has made such a drastic and sudden change. considering the time scales that mother nature works on I doubt she could create such a statistical anomaly in only a few decades.
As for the attempt to make an argument about lead (and I hesitate to call that an argument) ..how about Lower IQ in children exposed to lead
and here is an article detailing effects at different exposures.
It is simply ridiculous to say
Evidence that is not true? So you are claiming that never before has a child gotten sick, had clear indications of heavy metal poisoning, and then had the amount in their system measured???? Of COURSE this has been done!!
Arguing the classic "But there's no proof it isn't true" is a fallacy. Called "Appeal to Ignorance" or "Burden of Proof" fallacy, it is basically a way to say, "I can't offer an argument to prove you wrong but I can suggest another possibility and then insist that you must prove IT wrong."
Well I'm not going to bite. Lead is dangerous. When children are rushed to the hospital and are near death you can bet the amounts in their blood are measured and associated with the physical effects. It is not mysticism. If you can show me ONE scientist or doctor saying that no one knows what lead does to a child THEN you may have a point to argue in that line...
Here you go, this is a decent list of people who believe in UFO's and almost to the person they have PHD's in physics, some other science, or math..though there are some psychologist types in there it seems. And these people have put a FACE to their names. So, if these people believe in UFO's and have PH.D.'s then UFO's must exist...
Come on! First I can tell you that few self-respecting scientists would sign that petition because it offers ZERO attempts to actually give answers or present counter theories. It is an over-generalized, sweeping statement. It would be academic and professional suicide to state unequivocally that there is no human-caused global warming because there is not yet any proof. Even the most sceptical scientist would say, "I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely." or something to that effect.
Here is one concept that has been argued by scientists. There is clear evidence that the weather has begun to follow the human weekly cycle.
It is statistically undeniable. What is causing it is nearly impossible to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" however it is unlikely that "nature" has made such a drastic and sudden change. considering the time scales that mother nature works on I doubt she could create such a statistical anomaly in only a few decades.
As for the attempt to make an argument about lead (and I hesitate to call that an argument) ..how about Lower IQ in children exposed to lead
and here is an article detailing effects at different exposures.
It is simply ridiculous to say
QUOTE
Any evidence that the statement concerning lead levels is not true? My experience is that there is a large safety margin in government imposed TLV levels of toxins. Would not surprise me at all if a lead level seven times the legal limit is safe for children.
Evidence that is not true? So you are claiming that never before has a child gotten sick, had clear indications of heavy metal poisoning, and then had the amount in their system measured???? Of COURSE this has been done!!
Arguing the classic "But there's no proof it isn't true" is a fallacy. Called "Appeal to Ignorance" or "Burden of Proof" fallacy, it is basically a way to say, "I can't offer an argument to prove you wrong but I can suggest another possibility and then insist that you must prove IT wrong."
Well I'm not going to bite. Lead is dangerous. When children are rushed to the hospital and are near death you can bet the amounts in their blood are measured and associated with the physical effects. It is not mysticism. If you can show me ONE scientist or doctor saying that no one knows what lead does to a child THEN you may have a point to argue in that line...
QUOTE(La Herring Rouge @ Feb 29 2004, 11:55 PM)
Come on! First I can tell you that few self-respecting scientists would sign that petition because it offers ZERO attempts to actually give answers or present counter theories. It is an over-generalized, sweeping statement. It would be academic and professional suicide to state unequivocally that there is no human-caused global warming because there is not yet any proof. Even the most sceptical scientist would say, "I'm not sure, but it seems unlikely." or something to that effect.
Please, read the petition again.
QUOTE
There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth's atmosphere and disruption of the Earth's climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.
It does not state that global warming has been disproven. It states there is no convincing evidence that it will cause disruption of the Earth's climate. Yep, there are scientists that believe in UFOs. There are also nutty scientists that assume doomsday global warming scenarios have a high likelihood of happening.
The fact is plants tend to grow more vigorously with higher levels of CO2, that is a proven fact. Another fact is that warmer climates tend to promote longer growing seasons. There is no scientific consensus that global warming is not part of the Earth's natural cycle, or that it is harmful. People are trying to infer worst case scenarios, with a small probability of occurring, are fact.
I looked up the first name on the petition, Phillip H. Abelson PhD. A quick search found he has been published in the Journal of Clinical Ligand Assay and at least three times in Science, Sept. 21, 1990, April 8, 1994 and July 16, 1999. Seems to be mainly a plant guy, nothing on UFO's. Don't know if he respects himself, but seems to be well respected by others.
QUOTE
Well I'm not going to bite. Lead is dangerous. When children are rushed to the hospital and are near death you can bet the amounts in their blood are measured and associated with the physical effects. It is not mysticism. If you can show me ONE scientist or doctor saying that no one knows what lead does to a child THEN you may have a point to argue in that line...
Who argued lead was not dangerous? At certain levels pretty much anything will kill you. The question is at what level lead is dangerous.
No, the questions are:
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
Hugo, the petition is pretty wacky. The Oregon Institute of Science and Medicine is a farm in rural Oregon where this guy is the only permanant staff member. He conducted a mass mailing of this petition to anybody with a Batchelors of Science degree and refuses to reveal how many petitions he sent ("enviros" will use it against him he claims).
The package he sent to these people included a Wall Street Journal editorial and an unpublished, unpeer-reviewed manuscript formated to look like a national acadamy of science paper with a cover letter signed by a former NAS president. The NAS felt obliged to notify people the report wasnt of their making.
So basically if you were a freshly minted computer science graduate working as a summer intern on Howard Stern you could sign and send it back. Thank god for that expertise on climate models. Also, there are many funny names on it like "Perry Mason" Ginger Spice, etc.
Also, there is no contact information for ANY of the names. No institutes, companies, thinktanks listed of any sort. As far as I know they are all junior geologists and programmers working for the petroleum industry.
Did i mention that his repeated use of the term, "enviros" makes his credibility a little suspect? (nice way of putting it)
The package he sent to these people included a Wall Street Journal editorial and an unpublished, unpeer-reviewed manuscript formated to look like a national acadamy of science paper with a cover letter signed by a former NAS president. The NAS felt obliged to notify people the report wasnt of their making.
So basically if you were a freshly minted computer science graduate working as a summer intern on Howard Stern you could sign and send it back. Thank god for that expertise on climate models. Also, there are many funny names on it like "Perry Mason" Ginger Spice, etc.
Also, there is no contact information for ANY of the names. No institutes, companies, thinktanks listed of any sort. As far as I know they are all junior geologists and programmers working for the petroleum industry.
Did i mention that his repeated use of the term, "enviros" makes his credibility a little suspect? (nice way of putting it)
QUOTE(Hugo @ Mar 1 2004, 08:49 AM)
QUOTE
Well I'm not going to bite. Lead is dangerous. When children are rushed to the hospital and are near death you can bet the amounts in their blood are measured and associated with the physical effects. It is not mysticism. If you can show me ONE scientist or doctor saying that no one knows what lead does to a child THEN you may have a point to argue in that line...
Who argued lead was not dangerous? At certain levels pretty much anything will kill you. The question is at what level lead is dangerous.
From the CDC:
QUOTE
Exposure to lead can damage the nervous, hematopoietic, and renal systems ( 1,2 ) and is particularly harmful to the developing nervous systems of fetuses and children aged <72 months. Extremely elevated blood lead levels (BLLs) >70 µg/dL can cause severe neurologic problems (e.g., seizure, coma, and death) ( 3). Although severe cases are rare today ( 4), the threshold for harmful effects of lead remains unknown. Since 1975, as new data became available, CDC has revised its recommendations regarding the threshold of BLLs that should raise concern and trigger interventions ( 5--7 ). By 1991, CDC had lowered the BLL threshold 66.6% to 10 µg/dL, from 30 µg/dL in 1975 ( 5,7 ), in response to studies in the late 1980s that linked BLLs as low as 10 µg/dL with decreased intelligence and other adverse neurodevelopmental effects ( 8--11 ). Ongoing research conducted since 1991 provides evidence of adverse effects at even lower levels, <10 µg/dL, among children aged <72 months ( 12--16 ).
From the National Safety Council:
QUOTE
Exposure to lead is estimated by measuring levels of lead in the blood (in micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood). The US Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has set a "level of concern" for children at 10 micrograms per deciliter. At this level, it is generally accepted that adverse health effects can begin to set in. However, recent research published in the New England Journal of Medicine provides new evidence that there could well be very harmful effects occurring at even lower levels of exposure, even as low as 5 micrograms of lead per deciliter of blood. In other words, science is now telling us that there is in fact no level of lead exposure that can be considered safe.
For the last time, this discussion is NOT about Global Warming. The questions for debate are:
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
If this debate continues to be dragged off topic it will be closed. People who deliberately derail this discussion will receive a strike.
1. Are these charges true or false?
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true? What should happen?
If this debate continues to be dragged off topic it will be closed. People who deliberately derail this discussion will receive a strike.
What people are ignoring is that government agencies have a natural bias toward government regulation. Without government regulation these agencies do not exist and their workers have to find a real job, rather than a parasitical one. The proper thing to do would be to submit the reports in their entirety and add an addendum citing any disagreements with the report. What I see here is bias toward the environment, good; bias toward productivity; bad. The loss of productive capacity, due to unneeded regulations, can also result in human casualties.
QUOTE(Hugo @ Mar 1 2004, 03:46 PM)
What people are ignoring is that government agencies have a natural bias toward government regulation.
Have they? I would have thought that an agency appointed by a neo-conservative administration would have a bias toward deregulation - which makes the findings of some of the agencies operating under the Bush administration that much more compelling.
But we are not here to discuss the pros and cons of the findings of the administration's agencies and advisors but whether those findings, for good or ill, were suppressed, distorted, or undermined. I think, unquestionably, they were. One may argue the merits of such suppression, distortion, or undermining (though not in this thread), or one may debate whether or not this is what the Bush administration has done (which is the point of this discussion). It looks to me as though this administration has done exactly that. Apart from debating the consequences of such action, the reasons behind the suppression, distortion, and/or undermining are irrelevant here.
QUOTE
The proper thing to do would be to submit the reports in their entirety and add an addendum citing any disagreements with the report.
Would it be? In my experience, when one is commissioned to do research, one does the research and submits the results. One does not submit a report saying "We have concluded, my lord, on the basis of all available evidence, that the earth is round - but, oh yeah, some still feel that it is flat - oh, and others believe that we live inside a hollow sphere with the sun at its center - and, of course, others believe that the earth is a continuum extending infinitely in all directions - and yet others believe..."
QUOTE
What I see here is bias toward the environment, good; bias toward productivity; bad.
Hmmn - what I see is "the environment at the expense of profits" vs. "profits at the expense of the environment". But neither of our positions addresses the actual questions for debate here:
1. Are these charges true or false?
From what I have seen and read, they would certainly seem to be true.
2. Should there be consequences if the allegations are true?
An administration is free to respect or ignore any advice it solicits. If it wilfully distorts that advice in order to effect predetermined policy, those commissioned to provide that advice have every right to make their findings public - and to criticize the action taken. Beyond that, the "consequences" are up to the electorate.
What should happen?
A dishonest administration which pursues a destructive agenda against the better judgement of its advisors should be voted out of office. Then again, this is America...
QUOTE(Wertz @ Mar 1 2004, 03:53 PM)
QUOTE(Hugo @ Mar 1 2004, 03:46 PM)
What people are ignoring is that government agencies have a natural bias toward government regulation.
Have they? I would have thought that an agency appointed by a neo-conservative administration would have a bias toward deregulation - which makes the findings of some of the agencies operating under the Bush administration that much more compelling.1111111111
From the EPA's website:
QUOTE
EPA employs approximately 18,000 people in locations across the country, including its headquarters in Washington DC, 10 regional offices, and 17 laboratories. If you are interested in helping us protect the global environment for this generation and generations to come, we invite you to explore this site further.
I am betting most of those 18,000 employees worked for the EPA before Jan 2001. I am also betting most of those employees intend to be working for the EPA on Jan 21, 2005, regardless of who wins the election.
QUOTE
If you are interested in helping us protect the global environment for this generation and generations to come, we invite you to explore this site further
Nothing said about balancing economical concerns with environmental concerns, seems a bit biased to me. Seems their recruiting is aimed at advocates for environmental regulations.
QUOTE
Would it be? In my experience, when one is commissioned to do research, one does the research and submits the results. One does not submit a report saying "We have concluded, my lord, on the basis of all available evidence, that the earth is round - but, oh yeah, some still feel that it is flat - oh, and others believe that we live inside a hollow sphere with the sun at its center - and, of course, others believe that the earth is a continuum extending infinitely in all directions - and yet others believe..."
Excuse me, I did not make myself clear here. What I meant was that the proper thing for the executive branch to have done was leave the report as it stood and add any addendum to clarify their position on the report. This way biases are evened out. You have the biases of a agency who's basic purpose is to regulate, balanced with an administration who's primary concerns are economic. I'm sorry, I don't trust a bloated government agency not to remain unbiased on topics regarding their own future growth prospects.
At least we get both biases presented, would not get that under a Democrat administration.
A bloated government agency? Who brought up the defense department?
Anyway, EPA admin Whitman was a republican supporter of president Bush and hardly an enemy of deregulation. For some reason even she found the administrations positions extreme.
Anyway, EPA admin Whitman was a republican supporter of president Bush and hardly an enemy of deregulation. For some reason even she found the administrations positions extreme.
QUOTE(santasdad @ Mar 2 2004, 08:38 PM)
A bloated government agency? Who brought up the defense department?
Anyway, EPA admin Whitman was a republican supporter of president Bush and hardly an enemy of deregulation. For some reason even she found the administrations positions extreme.
Anyway, EPA admin Whitman was a republican supporter of president Bush and hardly an enemy of deregulation. For some reason even she found the administrations positions extreme.
Two wrongs don't make a right, one bloated government agency does not justify another. Country did pretty well for 200 years without the EPA.
You also seem to be able to read Whitman's mind. Please give me a quote from her that shows she left her position due to extremist policies of this administration.
Whitmans conflicts with the WH were pretty well known. Maybe you believe that everyone leaves the whitehouse to "spend more time with family". What a coincidence that the 2cd in charge of EPA did the same thing.
"Theres no question but that gloabl warming is a real phenomenon that is occurring," she said empahtically. "And while scientists can't predict where the droughts will occur, where the flooding will occur precisely, or when, we know those things will occur."
---Whitman to a group of reporters. Doesnt sound much like Dubya.
"George Bush was very clear during the course of the campaign that he believes in a multipollutant strategy and that includes CO2. He has been very clear that the science is good on global warming."
----Whitman on Crossfire before Bush reverses himself.
"He went further in this letter than anyone could have expected, even Hagel! Energy production is all that matters, he couldnt have made it clearer."
----Angry Whitman to ONeill in "The Price of Loyalty", discussing the Bush policy flip-flop.
"I would strongly recommend that you continue to recognize that global warming is a real and serious issue. While not specifically endorsing the targets called for in Kyoto, you could indicate that you are exploring how to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions internally and will continue no matter what else transpires.
Mr. President, this is a credibility issue for the US in the international community. It is also an issue that is resonating here, at home.We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the foocus on the "K" word to action, but we have to build some bonafides first.
Im available to discuss this further if you want."
----Whitmans memo to the President, circulated to Treasury as well. One of 19,000 documents ONeill gave to Suskind I believe.
"This is a slaughter. Its ten on two not counting the white house people and all the advisors to the groups from various industries"
----Whitman to ONeill during Cheneys energy task force. "Price of Loyalty"
"I'm not leaving because of clashes with the White House," she said in an interview on CNN. "In fact, I haven't had any."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0503/22whitman.html
Funny stuff.
"Theres no question but that gloabl warming is a real phenomenon that is occurring," she said empahtically. "And while scientists can't predict where the droughts will occur, where the flooding will occur precisely, or when, we know those things will occur."
---Whitman to a group of reporters. Doesnt sound much like Dubya.
"George Bush was very clear during the course of the campaign that he believes in a multipollutant strategy and that includes CO2. He has been very clear that the science is good on global warming."
----Whitman on Crossfire before Bush reverses himself.
"He went further in this letter than anyone could have expected, even Hagel! Energy production is all that matters, he couldnt have made it clearer."
----Angry Whitman to ONeill in "The Price of Loyalty", discussing the Bush policy flip-flop.
"I would strongly recommend that you continue to recognize that global warming is a real and serious issue. While not specifically endorsing the targets called for in Kyoto, you could indicate that you are exploring how to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions internally and will continue no matter what else transpires.
Mr. President, this is a credibility issue for the US in the international community. It is also an issue that is resonating here, at home.We need to appear engaged and shift the discussion from the foocus on the "K" word to action, but we have to build some bonafides first.
Im available to discuss this further if you want."
----Whitmans memo to the President, circulated to Treasury as well. One of 19,000 documents ONeill gave to Suskind I believe.
"This is a slaughter. Its ten on two not counting the white house people and all the advisors to the groups from various industries"
----Whitman to ONeill during Cheneys energy task force. "Price of Loyalty"
"I'm not leaving because of clashes with the White House," she said in an interview on CNN. "In fact, I haven't had any."
http://www.ajc.com/news/content/news/0503/22whitman.html
Funny stuff.
[QUOTE][QUOTE]"I'm not leaving because of clashes with the White House," she said in an interview on CNN. "In fact, I haven't had any."
I think that says it all. Minor disagreements do not mean a clash of ideas. Bush did not squash the EPA report. Made some modifications. No one knows to what extent human activity is contributing to global warming, or what the consequences of global warming will be.
From www.citizenreviewonline.org
[/QUOTE]Whitman, in her letter, defended the administration’s environmental policies which have been under attack by environmentalists as a series of rollbacks in protecting the nation’s air, water and land.
“Our work has been guided by the strong belief that environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand,” she wrote. “The EPA has built an enviable record of success that will result in significant improvements to the state of our nation’s treasured environment.”
I don't think Whitman will be writing a tell-all book anytime soon.
I think that says it all. Minor disagreements do not mean a clash of ideas. Bush did not squash the EPA report. Made some modifications. No one knows to what extent human activity is contributing to global warming, or what the consequences of global warming will be.
From www.citizenreviewonline.org
[/QUOTE]Whitman, in her letter, defended the administration’s environmental policies which have been under attack by environmentalists as a series of rollbacks in protecting the nation’s air, water and land.
“Our work has been guided by the strong belief that environmental protection and economic prosperity can and must go hand-in-hand,” she wrote. “The EPA has built an enviable record of success that will result in significant improvements to the state of our nation’s treasured environment.”
I don't think Whitman will be writing a tell-all book anytime soon.
They wanted ONeill to say the same thing when he left. Thankfully he preferred the truth.
When I read that someone thinks their position is getting "slaughtered" and that they are "outnumbered" it doesnt strike me as a quibble over the font on the letterhead. I think youll find even conservative sources agree that Whitmans tenure at EPA was rocky. If you believe otherwise, thats your business.
When I read that someone thinks their position is getting "slaughtered" and that they are "outnumbered" it doesnt strike me as a quibble over the font on the letterhead. I think youll find even conservative sources agree that Whitmans tenure at EPA was rocky. If you believe otherwise, thats your business.
I agree there were disagreements but to label Bush's policies as extremist are not true. It is a sad attempt to influence debate on this issue. There is no consesus on either what part of global warming is due to human activity or what the consequences are. If you wish to assume chicken little theories are facts, go ahead.
This isnt just about global warming, it affects many aspects of environmental policy including basic air quality.
That an EPA administrator would be saying this about a presidents energy policies, "Energy production is all that matters, he couldnt have made it clearer.", should put up some red flags regardless of your party affiliation. Its not like the energy lobby donated any money to the Bush campaign. Doh!
I dont remember saying that the sky is falling but ok.
That an EPA administrator would be saying this about a presidents energy policies, "Energy production is all that matters, he couldnt have made it clearer.", should put up some red flags regardless of your party affiliation. Its not like the energy lobby donated any money to the Bush campaign. Doh!
I dont remember saying that the sky is falling but ok.
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.