09-23-2004, 04:23 PM | #1 |
Bastet - Egyptian Cat Goddess
Join Date: September 5, 2001
Location: Calgary, AB
Age: 49
Posts: 3,491
|
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 . 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 ] |
09-24-2004, 09:32 AM | #2 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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.. |
09-24-2004, 10:03 AM | #3 | |
Galvatron
Join Date: January 10, 2002
Location: Upstate NY
Age: 56
Posts: 2,109
|
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:
|
|
09-24-2004, 10:08 AM | #4 | |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Quote:
|
|
09-24-2004, 10:45 AM | #5 |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
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. |
09-24-2004, 11:50 AM | #6 |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
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.
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
09-24-2004, 12:46 PM | #7 | |
Lord Ao
Join Date: May 27, 2004
Location: Canada
Age: 42
Posts: 2,061
|
Quote:
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.
__________________
Where there is a great deal of free speech, there is always a certain amount of foolish speech. - Winston S. Churchill |
|
09-24-2004, 01:40 PM | #8 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
Well, it depends on whether you're a Clear Skies scientist or a Healthy Forest scientist.
|
09-24-2004, 02:57 PM | #9 | |
Ninja Storm Shadow
Join Date: March 27, 2001
Location: Northport,Alabama, USA
Age: 62
Posts: 3,577
|
Quote:
__________________
Crustiest of the OLD COOTS "Donating mirrors for years to help the Liberal/Socialist find their collective rear-ends, because both hands doesn't seem to be working. Veitnam 61-65:KIA 1864 66:KIA 5008 67:KIA 9378 68:KIA 14594 69:KIA 9414 70:KIA 4221 71:KIA 1380 72:KIA 300 Afghanistan2001-2008 KIA 585 2009-2012 KIA 1465 and counting Davros 1 Much abliged Massachusetts |
|
09-24-2004, 03:16 PM | #10 |
40th Level Warrior
Join Date: July 11, 2002
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 11,916
|
They didn't have the audacity to try to name bills and laws with those terms.
|
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
What science supports this? | robertthebard | General Discussion | 20 | 02-21-2007 03:52 AM |
My Thumb is locking up and popping.. | Ziroc | General Discussion | 11 | 05-12-2006 02:54 AM |
Is Evil Al under the thumb? | Mojo | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 24 | 07-19-2002 07:00 PM |
Science- Religion or Not? | Sir Goulum | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 118 | 06-27-2002 11:35 PM |
Where have all the science students gone? | DeSoya | General Conversation Archives (11/2000 - 01/2005) | 11 | 06-11-2002 12:42 AM |