Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Union of Concerned Scientists Charges Bush With Politicizing Science
The Florida Specifier | April 2004 | Prakash Gandhi

Posted on 04/19/2004 9:07:45 AM PDT by Roos_Girl

The Bush administration routinely suppresses, censors and distorts science on environmental and other issues, according to a major new report by a group of scientists.

The scientists make the claim in a 38-page report in which they urge citizens, Congress and other scientists to push to "reverse this dangerour trend" and "restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking."

"The report really coduments what we see as a disturbing and unprecedented pattern of misuse and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration," said Kevin Knobloch, president of the 65,000-member Union of Concerned Scientists.

The report claims that federal scientsts are muzzled, advisory panels are stacked with people who push the Bush administration's political agenda, and scientific findings are manipulated or ignored. "The report documents many cases where the integrity of science was compromised," said Knobloch.

Across a broad range of issues - from childhood lead poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change - the administration is distorting and censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies, says the union.

White House officials dispute the claims. White House science adviser John Marburger said the report is disappointing because it makes sweeping generalizations about policy in this administration that are based on a random selection of incidents and issues.

But the scientists disagree. "The administration has disbanded scientific advisory committees, and fired scientists who are highly respected in their fields and replaced them with those hand-picked by the administration," said Knobloch.

The American public should be concerned because it places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information.

"I think the American public has a right to expect that its leadership, whether it's the President of Congress, has unvarnished access to the best science," said Knobloch.

"What we are seeing is that this administration has been trying to change the conclusions of that science or suppress it so the decision-makers are not getting access to the best science."

One example is the issue of pollution from power plants, Knobloch said. The scientists conluded there was a delay in a report from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency on mercury pollution from some power plants. "Congress is trying to make the best decisions on power plant pollution and they were not given access to the most up-to-date scientific information," Knobloch said.

EPA itself came under fire for issuing a report assuring New Yorkers that the debris-laden air in the wake of the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks was safe to breathe. It was not until August 2003 that the agency acknowledged that it had issued the report, at the White Houses's behest, before adequately monitoring air quality for contaminants such as PCBs, soot and dioxin.

The union has launched a campaign to stop the "misuse" of science before it damages the nation's health, safety and environment. "We are calling on Congress to fully investigate this matter," Knobloch said.


TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; Government; News/Current Events; Politics/Elections
KEYWORDS: chutzpah

1 posted on 04/19/2004 9:07:49 AM PDT by Roos_Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
The Union of Concerned Scientists exists for the sole purpose of politicizing science.
2 posted on 04/19/2004 9:10:07 AM PDT by jdege
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Union of Concerned Scientists?! The Nuke freeze/"Nuclear Clock" group accusing BUSH of "politicizing science?!"

This called for a BARF ALERT!!
3 posted on 04/19/2004 9:10:47 AM PDT by sittnick (There's no salvation in politics.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
hypocrisy

\Hy*poc"ri*sy\ (h[i^]*p[o^]k"r[i^]*s[y^]), n.; pl. Hypocrisies (-s[i^]z). [OE. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, OF. hypocrisie, ypocrisie, F. hypocrisie, L. hypocrisis, fr. Gr. "ypo`krisis the playing a part on the stage, simulation, outward show, fr. "ypokr`nesqai to answer on the stage, to play a part; "ypo` under + kri`nein to decide; in the middle voice, to dispute, contend. See Hypo-, and Critic.] The act or practice of a hypocrite; a feigning to be what one is not, or to feel what one does not feel; a dissimulation, or a concealment of one's real character, disposition, or motives; especially, the assuming of false appearance of virtue or religion; a simulation of goodness.

Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

4 posted on 04/19/2004 9:12:30 AM PDT by inkling
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sittnick
I think a giggle alert would have been sufficient!
5 posted on 04/19/2004 9:13:53 AM PDT by RebelBanker (Deo Vindice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: jdege
The Union of Concerned Scientists exists for the sole purpose of politicizing science.

Good quote!

6 posted on 04/19/2004 9:14:08 AM PDT by MegaSilver (Training a child in red diapers is one of the cruelest and most unusual forms of abuse.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
This article is only missing three things.

a) Barf Alert.
b) Rim Shot.
c) Laugh Track.
7 posted on 04/19/2004 9:15:25 AM PDT by .cnI redruM (Air America - at least Al Jazeera can pay their bills to stay on the air.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
I wonder what this group's views of creation/evolution are!
8 posted on 04/19/2004 9:16:02 AM PDT by wingster
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
The Union of Concerned Scientists exists for the sole purpose of politicizing science.

LOL, exactly my thoughts. What a bunch of hypocrites. The sad truth is though, that science is way too politicized by the scientists. We expect politicians to politicize everything, but science today is largely driven by scientists with a political agenda. Take the global warming crowd.....please.

9 posted on 04/19/2004 9:18:08 AM PDT by Always Right
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Ho hum, the usual suspects of liberal academics making their usual sniping attacks on a Republican administration in an election year. Next we will probably start hearing about the "Countdown to Armageddon" clock or whatever they call it that only seems to pop up in election years involving a Republican incumbent.
10 posted on 04/19/2004 9:28:28 AM PDT by KellyAdmirer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Weren't they worried about global cooling about 25 years ago ?
11 posted on 04/19/2004 9:30:46 AM PDT by Eric in the Ozarks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

Comment #12 Removed by Moderator

To: jdege
First thought I had when reading that headline:

The Pot Calling the Kettle Black


13 posted on 04/19/2004 9:39:02 AM PDT by COBOL2Java (If you can read this, thank a teacher. If you are reading this in English, thank a soldier.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Elsie; AndrewC; jennyp; lockeliberty; RadioAstronomer; LiteKeeper; Fester Chugabrew; ...
Interested in your comments PING!
14 posted on 04/19/2004 9:41:55 AM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
The Union of Concerned Scientists exists for the sole purpose of politicizing science.

Dang. That sums it up. Might as well close the thread!

15 posted on 04/19/2004 9:42:30 AM PDT by January24th (what a difference a day makes)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: COBOL2Java
"The Pot Calling the Kettle Black"

That is exactly what I thought when I read that headline.
16 posted on 04/19/2004 9:46:04 AM PDT by CzarNicky (The problem with bad ideas is that they seemed like good ideas at the time.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 13 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Notice that this "unbiased, unpolitical" news "report" merely summarizes and repeats what the "unpolitical" UCS lies about and exaggerates as THEY try to defeat Bush politically for completely biased and idealogical reasons?

But the liberal science community in the EPA and anti-nuclear, anti-big business UCS has never lied or exaggerated, has it?
17 posted on 04/19/2004 9:46:13 AM PDT by Robert A. Cook, PE (I can only support FR by donating monthly, but ABBCNNBCBS continue to lie every day!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
At first, I thought this was going to be from the Onion - close enough...
18 posted on 04/19/2004 9:47:14 AM PDT by talleyman (E=mc2 (before taxes))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: bondserv
Thank you so much for the ping!

IMHO, science is at a important crossroad. On the one hand, there are many scientists who eschew all attempts to bring ideology and politics to the table. On the other hand, there are many scientists who do just that.

19 posted on 04/19/2004 9:48:10 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Never trust anything published by a union.

20 posted on 04/19/2004 9:51:29 AM PDT by Chewbacca (I think I will stay single. Getting married is just so 'gay'.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
The American public should be concerned because it places its trust in the government as an honest broker of scientific information.

ROTFLMAO. There is no impartial science anymore...if there ever was. Sounds like the leftits are pissed because thier leftit buddies are getting kicked off the panel(s) and being replaced with neutral or rightist. whatever.

21 posted on 04/19/2004 9:52:14 AM PDT by NotQuiteCricket (10 kinds of people in the world us and them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
The title should read: "Left-Wing Science PAC Charges Bush With Disagreeing With Them"
22 posted on 04/19/2004 9:55:36 AM PDT by kevkrom (The John Kerry Songbook: www.imakrom.com/kerrysongs)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
a disturbing and unprecedented pattern of misuse and misrepresentation of science by the Bush administration

...but we are undisturbed by misuse of science by Democrats, Envirowhacks, Science In The Public Interest....
23 posted on 04/19/2004 9:56:24 AM PDT by ApplegateRanch (The world needs more horses, and fewer Jackasses!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: jdege
Exactly, the sole purpose of this Union is to politicize science. There concern is that science is not being used in the way they think it should be politically.

24 posted on 04/19/2004 10:18:11 AM PDT by JLS
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
INTREP
25 posted on 04/19/2004 10:36:43 AM PDT by LiteKeeper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
My favorite laugh line (besides the headline, which is a scream) is the contention that the American public trusts the government to be an honest broker of scientific information.

The Government can't even get honest information in a public hearing concerning basic facts; how can anyone seriesly believe that the gummint could act as an arbiter of science?

By the way, what time is it on their whack clock?
26 posted on 04/19/2004 10:47:59 AM PDT by You Dirty Rats (WE WILL WIN WITH W - Isara)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
***Union of Concerned Scientists Charges Bush With Politicizing Science***

Translation: We aren't getting all those enormous government grants that Clintoon used to make sure got handed out to us whenever we supported his money-raising schemes.
27 posted on 04/19/2004 12:08:23 PM PDT by kitkat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: You Dirty Rats
I could NOT find any clock on their website, but did find this:


Here's a flashback to show how accurate these guys are.......
 
 
Return to Publications home page
The Magazine of the Union of Concerned Scientists Vol. 21 No. 4 Winter 2000

Countdown

Are nuclear power plants ready for the next century?

by David Lochbaum, Nuclear Safety Engineer

 
 
 
related links
 
 
 in clean energy
 
Nuclear safety


The new year's countdown will hold more suspense this year than in previous years. Some computers will "crash" as a result of the millenium bug, causing inconvenience as ATMs and traffic lights shut down. But if computers quit at nuclear power plants, the result could be more than inconvenience. The nuclear industry and nuclear regulators have had time to take precautions against a not-so-Happy New Year, but they're not as prepared as the threat warrants.


The Millenium Bug

Many computers and products with computer chips keep track of dates as two-digit values -- October 15, 1980, codes as 10/15/80; June 7, 1999, as 06/07/99. At midnight on December 31, 1999, these computers will interpret the new year as a step back to 01/01/00, or the year 1900, instead of a step into a new millenium. Confused computers may malfunction or stop working altogether.


The Effect on Nuclear Plants


Operations and emergency systems at nuclear power plants use 1960s technology that is not controlled by computers. Thus the millenium bug cannot affect them. But the bug may disable supporting systems, such as plant monitoring or security, making it more difficult for workers to recognize or respond to any emergency that might arise from other causes.



What Can Be Done

Throughout 1999, UCS has been warning the Nuclear Regulatory Commission, the Congress, and the public about the potential dangers and the simple measures that would decrease risks. Because malfunctioning security computers could lock doors normally accessed by card readers, we've suggested that plant workers carry the ordinary keys that can also open the doors. Since operators are unaccustomed to using the backup systems that record data from sensors throughout the plant, we've recommended additional training to bring staff up to speed in using the backups to evaluate plant conditions.

We've also warned against a false sense of security. In July, the NRC announced that emergency systems at all of the 103 nuclear power plants currently in operation in the United States were Y2K ready. We pointed out that the NRC was basing that claim on responses to an audit plan that does not define what constitutes Y2K readiness. It's like asking, "Does the Titanic carry lifeboats?" instead of "Does the Titanic have enough lifeboats to carry all its passengers and crew?"

We are not alone in our criticism. In October, the US Government Accounting Office testified before Congress that the NRC has done a poor job of independently verifying plants' Y2K readiness.

In October, the GAO and the Department of Energy asked UCS what could be done at this late date. We suggested running tests at plants that are shut down for refueling before January 1: simply roll the computers' clocks forward into the new year and see what happens. Since 26 plants are slated for refueling during this period, the results would provide some indication about which plants might have problems. Workers at plants with computer systems similar to those that fail could take precautions and make tests of their own. Whether this advice will be followed we don't know.

If you live near a nuclear power plant, you might want to ask plant personnel about the plant's Y2K readiness. The UCS website (www.ucsusa.org) provides a list of questions.
 
 
...roll the computers' clocks forward into the new year and see what happens...
 
 
This sounds mighty similar to a ******* minefield clearing operation.........  ***** = insert favorite, not too bright, ethic group here

28 posted on 04/19/2004 4:06:41 PM PDT by Elsie (Truth is violated by falsehood, but it is outraged by silence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; bondserv
science is at a important crossroad. On the one hand, there are many scientists who eschew all attempts to bring ideology and politics to the table. On the other hand, there are many scientists who do just that.

I agree with you, A-G...but it has always been so. Sadly, not all of us are morally highminded, and scientists are just as prone as any other human to various agendas and the most basic of human failings: Greed.

29 posted on 04/20/2004 12:43:21 AM PDT by Aracelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Piltdown_Woman
Thank you so much for your reply! It's good to hear from you, my sister in the Lord!

I agree with your analysis of the underlying cause and that it has always been this way.

IMHO science is at a crossroad because certain subjects it is now tackling will tilt one way or the other depending on which side has the "upper hand" in influence and money.

The subjects include artificial intelligence (consciousness, qualia, epiphenomenons of the physical brain) - information theory (functional complexity, self organizing complexity, abiogenesis) - strong determinism (geometric physics, dualities, string theory, supersymmetry, cosmologies).

IMHO, it could go either way because of political ideology and correctness.

30 posted on 04/20/2004 7:29:13 AM PDT by Alamo-Girl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Alamo-Girl; Piltdown_Woman
We can only pray for intellectual honesty on all sides. When I see decisions by President Bush I feel he relies on principles to guide him. (Kyoto, Stem Cell Research, Cloning, AIDS help to Africa...)

Unexpectedly for many conservatives, he chose to aid those suffering souls in Africa, which in principle is the right thing to do. I hope his leadership continues to influence other leaders in science and politics to dictate the courses of future research.
31 posted on 04/21/2004 7:15:18 PM PDT by bondserv (Alignment is critical!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 30 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
In other news, the Rev. Jesse Jackson accuses Bush of policizing religion.
32 posted on 04/21/2004 7:19:26 PM PDT by scottinoc
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Roos_Girl
Do as I say...NOT as I do? (suck thumb)
33 posted on 04/21/2004 7:27:36 PM PDT by PushinTin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson