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 ]