Ironworks Gaming Forum - Science struggles under W's thumb

Ironworks Gaming Forum (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/index.php)

- General Discussion (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=36)

- - Science struggles under W's thumb (http://www.ironworksforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=77335)

Interesting article on US elections for those with scientific backgrounds.

For me I find this paragraph to be very interesting:

The Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS), meanwhile, has documented dozens of examples of times the Bush administration seems to have altered or suppressed scientific findings to suit its agenda. Since February, more than 5,000 scientists have signed a UCS statement accusing the administration of misusing science. The list includes 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.
Source

Not only does he tell lies but he misuses science :eek: . Even good old Nancy was peeved at him on some of his decisions related to science.

[ 09-23-2004, 04:27 PM: Message edited by: pritchke ]

Something to keep in mind Pritchke, is that the UCS isn't even a blip on the radar. There are just as many scientists who don't have their panties in a wad because their particular field of interest isn't being given enough weight.

For as long as I have been alive and old enough to notice such things, that there are grumpy groups of scientists and wacko's who complain no matter what.

According to Popular Science's recent article about this issue, at least Bush is funding useful research....and while Kerry has promised to fund more if he is elected....PS notes that theres no way he could do that without raising the deficit that he is already criticizing Bush about being too high..

Googled the Union of Concerned Scientists, on the
first page I got a critical review with some additional info.

Synopsis - The UCS is an agenda driven group, it's membership is open (so it's not just scientists) and therefore it should be subject to the same level of scrutiny you would apply to any advocacy group.

Not saying they're position isn't valid (have not done the research myself), but having the word 'Scientist' in the group name doesn't change the fact that it's an advocacy group. If there is indeed a science funding problem I suspect a bit of digging should find non-agenda based reports of that fact.

From : http://www.family.org/cforum/fosi/ab...i/a0032644.cfm

Quote:

The Union of Concerned Scientists
Many of the members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are legitimate scientists, with all the requisite credentials. Some are not. The UCS Web site describes its members as “people from all walks of life: parents and businesspeople, biologists and physicists, teachers and students.”2 Membership is open to all who “care about clean energy, clean vehicles, global security, food and the environment, and global issues such as climate change.”3 The basic $25 UCS membership fee even includes a free UCS mouse pad.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Not surprisingly, after months of vicious attacks against Lomborg, UCS’ Web site now has absolutely nothing to say about the man or his book.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The fact that not all the members of the Union of Concerned Scientists are true scientists does not mean the group is illegitimate and that its concerns should be dismissed. It does mean, however, that UCS is an agenda-driven advocacy group whose policy statements warrant the same level of scrutiny that should be applied to any report from any advocate. UCS members may not all be scholars, but they are all sold out to a radical environmental agenda.

Scientists, like other UCS members and everyone else, have opinions. Some of those opinions are based on hard data, some on intuition and some on personal preferences. Personal bias is part and parcel of the human experience, a part scientists must try to set aside in the pursuit of truth. UCS, Waxman and Planned Parenthood accuse the Bush Administration of mixing ideology with science. What about the accusers?

Are the Accusers Unbiased?
Waxman cites UCS as the authority for his accusations against the Bush Administration. But UCS has its own credibility problems. In “The Green Inquisitor,” Neil Hrab documents UCS’ systematic attack on fellow environmentalist Bjorn Lomborg when he published his findings refuting the standard sky-is-falling liberal line in his book The Skeptical Environmentalist. According to Hrab, UCS and friends thought they had successfully censored Lomborg when the “Danish Committee on Scientific Dishonesty” found Lomborg, a former Green Peace member, guilty of fabricating data. However, in December 2003, the Danish Ministry of Science overturned the committee’s ruling, calling it, “completely void of argumentation.”4 Not surprisingly, after months of vicious attacks against Lomborg, UCS’ Web site now has absolutely nothing to say about the man or his book.

[ 09-24-2004, 10:05 AM: Message edited by: Thoran ]

Quote:

The UCS is an agenda driven group

Apparently, some don't get that from the name.

Well actually I think what they don't get from the name TL, is that it is a semi-hidden agenda....just from the name..you expect scientists....which is not what you are getting necessarily.

Everybody has an agenda, there is nothing wrong with having an agenda. The question is: Are those that are pushing a certain agenda honest about it, Do they apply the sample logic to both sides?

If somebody is honest about their agenda then we can deal, if they are not there is no use in even trying to deal.

Quote:

Originally posted by John D Harris:
Everybody has an agenda, there is nothing wrong with having an agenda. The question is: Are those that are pushing a certain agenda honest about it, Do they apply the sample logic to both sides?

If somebody is honest about their agenda then we can deal, if they are not there is no use in even trying to deal.

An excellent, excellent point.

And the world is filled with groups that misrepresent themselves through their name (sometimes the meaning or member composition has changed since the group was established), so why should the scientists be any different? Part o' the problem is that people have this perception that scientists are/should be objective about everything. Nice idea, but utterly theoretical.

Well, it depends on whether you're a Clear Skies scientist or a Healthy Forest scientist.

Quote:

Originally posted by Timber Loftis:
Well, it depends on whether you're a Clear Skies scientist or a Healthy Forest scientist.

What about the Dirty Air or Acid rainforest scientist? ;)

They didn't have the audacity to try to name bills and laws with those terms. ;) ;)