Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #1   Report Post  
Jim
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Junk Science of George W. Bush,

By Amanda Griscom



March 4, 2004 | In late February, after a star-studded, bipartisan
lineup of Nobel laureates and leading American scientists accused the
Bush administration of misusing and distorting science to serve
political ends, the initial response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was
flat-out denial. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
chief John Marburger dismissed the scientists' complaints as a
"conspiracy report" that cobbled together "disconnected issues that
rubbed somebody the wrong way." Marburger told the press he had no
intention of conducting an internal investigation or passing the report
along to higher-ups.

Perhaps he should have dropped them a memo.

Last week, Marburger's superiors essentially confirmed, albeit
inadvertently, the science community's charges. On Friday, President
Bush let go two members of his Council on Bioethics -- a highly regarded
scientist and a moral philosopher, both known for advocating research on
human embryo cells -- and replaced them with three cherry-picked
scientists more ideologically aligned with the administration's
conservative constituency, which opposes stem-cell research.

The scientist who was dismissed from the council, Elizabeth Blackburn, a
biologist at the University of California at San Francisco, told
Muckraker she was given the boot for political reasons: Her opinions
challenge those of the president and the council's director, University
of Chicago ethicist Leon Kass, who has directly criticized her views in
meetings. "Clearly Bush is stacking the council with more like-minded
and consonant members," Blackburn said. "It dramatically changes the
balance of viewpoints in the council to have three more people who,
based on their track records, are very much more socially conservative."

The Union of Concerned Scientists, which organized the scientists'
statement of protest to coincide with the release of a report titled
"Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush
Administration's Misuse of Science," saw the Bush administration's
dismissal of Blackburn as an offensive and foolhardy move on the heels
of the group's widely publicized allegations. "This clearly adds insult
to injury," said the group's president, Kevin Knobloch. "At a time when
they should be reaching out to the scientific community and reassuring
us, trying to bridge the growing disconnect, they're indicating that
they don't take our concerns seriously."

The administration's alleged hijacking and perversion of science has
particularly stark implications for the environment, as pointed out in
"The Junk Science of George W. Bush," a recent cover story in the Nation
by Robert F. Kennedy Jr. "The Bush White House is purging, censoring,
and blacklisting scientists and engineers whose work threatens the
profits of the administration's corporate paymasters or challenges the
ideological underpinnings of their radical anti-environmental agenda,"
Kennedy seethed.

Kennedy's article and the UCS report both invoke example after example
of the Bush administration's efforts to suppress and manipulate
environmental science: The U.S. EPA's notorious concealment of evidence
that air quality in Manhattan was hazardous after 9/11; its decision to
replace prominent scientists on an advisory committee on lead
regulations with "experts" supported by the lead industry; its delay in
releasing research on the damaging effects of mercury on children's
health; its repeated suppression of global-warming science. But though
the Kennedy article was clearly charged with high-octane political
rhetoric, the Bush administration can't write off the scientists'
statement as a partisan attack: It was signed by more than half a dozen
high-profile Republicans, including Lewis Branscomb, director of the
National Bureau of Standards under Nixon; Richard Garwin, a member of
the Presidential Science Advisory Committee under Nixon; W.K.H.
Panofsky, a PSAC member under Eisenhower; and Norman Ramsey, science
advisor to NATO under Eisenhower.

Russell Train, administrator of the EPA under Nixon and Ford, has also
been publicly supportive of the UCS report. "I don't see it as a
partisan issue at all," Train told the New York Times in a Feb. 19
article by James Glanz. "If it becomes that way, it's because the White
House chooses to make it a partisan issue."

Kurt Gottfried, chair of the UCS board and a Cornell University
professor emeritus of physics, told Muckraker that his organization's
report was itself based on the principles of scientific study: "In
science, if you examine a lot of events, you can infer a pattern
connecting them that has meaning -- even if you don't have a clear
formula or equation explaining them. In this case we examined a large
set of incidences -- not a small set -- and there is a certain
commonality to them [revealing] that the Bush administration
consistently [censors] scientific evidence and opinions that run
contrary to its goals."

Gottfried added that the report is just a start: "It's a good effort but
certainly not as comprehensive and authoritative as it could be. We
can't subpoena all the witnesses or documents [necessary] to investigate
the breadth and depth of the problem -- that's a job for Congress." It's
a good thing, then, that Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., has agreed to
schedule an oversight hearing next week in the Senate Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation, which he chairs, to investigate
concerns about the Bush administration's misuse of science. "The hearing
will focus on the Union of Concerned Scientists' report," said Rebecca
Hanks, communications director for the committee. Though it hasn't yet
been officially announced, it is tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday,
she said.

"The hearing may not resolve anything, but it will bring more air time
to the UCS report and raise public awareness about our concerns," said
David Michaels, one of the signers of the scientists' statement and
former assistant secretary for environment, safety and health at the
Department of Energy under Clinton. And public awareness, particularly
in an election year, is the most powerful form of checks and balances.

Blackburn, too, was heartened to hear of the upcoming congressional
hearing. "[My dismissal] fits into a larger pattern of which the media,
the public, and now Congress are growing ever more critical," she said,
sounding generally upbeat about her exile. "It's like that old Chinese
curse says: 'May you live in interesting times.'"

Managing "Big Muddy"
"Basically, the Army Corps has flipped us the bird -- at a time when
it's supposed to be saving the birds."

That's how Eric Eckl, spokesperson for American Rivers, sums up the Army
Corps of Engineers' new plan to manage the Missouri River, released on
Friday to blistering protest and threats of a new round of lawsuits from
the environmental community.

The plan disregards more than a decade of calls to restore the natural
flows of the beloved "Big Muddy" -- calls from scientists at the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Academy of Sciences, and from
a federal court last year that demanded the Corps lower river flows to
comply with the Endangered Species Act.

Since about 1990, scientists have identified an increasingly pressing
need to recreate more natural spring and summer flows in the Missouri --
whose waters are controlled by six enormous hydroelectric dams -- to
prevent extinction of the river's endangered and threatened populations
of sturgeon, tern and plover, and guard against future flooding. Just
this past December, scientists from the FWS confirmed once again the
need to alter flows, even after the research team was replaced at the
11th hour with new scientists at the Corps' behest.

The environmental community was generally pleased with the new team's
results, but according to Chad Smith, director of the Nebraska field
office for American Rivers, "In retrospect, it's become clear that the
new team amended a 300-page report in such a hurry that they created
loopholes which the Corps has been able to exploit."

Smith argues that the loopholes allow the Corps to manufacture 1,200
acres of artificial habitat for imperiled species rather than take the
more effective and less costly route of restoring the river's natural
flows. And the Corps plans to do it in a mere four months, by July 1,
rather than in the several-year time frame that FWS scientists predicted
it would take.

"This would not only be an extraordinarily irresponsible rush job," said
Smith. "It's impossible. It simply can't be done."

But Craig Manson, assistant secretary of the interior for fish,
wildlife, and parks, says his agency supports the Corps' interpretation
of the scientific results. "This is not a loophole, it's written in
black and white," says Manson. "The biological opinion says that if the
Corps can create the new habitat, they can operate at higher flows. Only
the Corps knows if they can recreate the habitat effectively in that
time frame; and if they can, that's just fine."

Beltway politicians have also jumped into the fray. Senate Minority
Leader Tom Daschle, D-S.D., whose state straddles a northern section of
the Missouri and would benefit from increased recreation as a result of
healthier fish and bird populations and higher water levels in
reservoirs, criticized the plan on Friday: "I am disappointed that the
best the Corps can come up with is a document that provides little more
than the status quo [and] blatantly ignores sound science."

On the other side of the boxing ring is Sen. Kit Bond, R-Mo., who
objects vehemently to river-flow changes, arguing that they would
cripple the barge industry in his state as well as the farmers who ship
their cargo up and down the river. Bond is so vocal about the issue that
when President Bush attended a fundraiser for the senator this past
summer, he appeased Bond with a declaration that no federal agency
should govern the flow of the longest river in America.

Less than a week before the Corps came out with its revised plan, Bond
was sounding his battle cry against river-flow changes. "Unless
clarified, the Department of Interior's 2003 Missouri River biological
opinion will cause extreme harm to farmers, transporters, electrical
consumers, and municipalities on the lower Missouri and Mississippi
rivers," Bond said at a meeting with industry representatives on Feb. 21.

After the plan was unveiled, Bond's office issued a press release that
evoked Bush's commitment, saying the senator has "talked to the
president and high-level administration officials on a number of
occasions, and will continue to push the administration to make good on
its promise."

But environmental groups are also ready to rumble. "We've been fighting
this fight for years, with the support of local communities, federal
courts and the soundest science. You can be sure we aren't going to stop
now," says Eckl, whose organization is pursuing a lawsuit against the
Corps and intends to integrate these new developments into the case.
"The scientific evidence is so overwhelmingly stacked against this plan
that there's simply no way a federal court can condone it."

Enviros are up against a formidable foe, given that Bush himself has a
vested interest in Missouri, a swing state with more electoral votes
than any of the six other states that share the river. But the president
has been conspicuously quiet on the issue lately, having said nothing
about it in his recent campaign visits to the state, despite
election-year pressure to keep his Missouri constituency happy. Perhaps
he realizes that this issue is a political lightning rod -- if he grabs
hold of it, environmentalists may use it to fry him in other Missouri
River basin states this election season.

The Corps will accept public comments on its Missouri River management
plan between March 5 and March 19.

Muck it up

Here at Muckraker, we always try to keep our eyes peeled and our ears to
the ground (a real physiognomic challenge). The more sources we have,
the better -- so if you are a fellow lantern-bearer in the dark caverns
of the Bush administration's environmental policy, let us know. We
welcome rumors, tips, whistleblowing, insider info, top-secret
documents, or other useful tidbits on developments in environmental
policy and the people behind them. Please send 'em along to
.

  #2   Report Post  
basskisser
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Junk Science of George W. Bush,

Jim wrote in message ...
By Amanda Griscom



March 4, 2004 | In late February, after a star-studded, bipartisan
lineup of Nobel laureates and leading American scientists accused the
Bush administration of misusing and distorting science to serve
political ends, the initial response from 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. was
flat-out denial. White House Office of Science and Technology Policy
chief John Marburger dismissed the scientists' complaints as a
"conspiracy report" that cobbled together "disconnected issues that
rubbed somebody the wrong way." Marburger told the press he had no
intention of conducting an internal investigation or passing the report
along to higher-ups.


snip

Yes, Bush has done more to harm the environment than any other
president, even his dad. He consistently foresakes good, solid science
and distorts the truth.
The great uniter, my ass.
  #3   Report Post  
John Gaquin
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Junk Science of George W. Bush,


"basskisser" wrote in message

The great uniter, my ass.


Yes, but unite it with what?


  #4   Report Post  
basskisser
 
Posts: n/a
Default The Junk Science of George W. Bush,

"John Gaquin" wrote in message ...
"basskisser" wrote in message

The great uniter, my ass.


Yes, but unite it with what?


Your lips.
Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
OT--Not again! More Chinese money buying our politicians. NOYB General 23 February 6th 04 05:01 PM
Gephardt -- Another liar? (OT) John H General 16 January 2nd 04 10:32 PM
Bush Quotes jps General 71 November 4th 03 04:30 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 11:39 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 BoatBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Boats"

 

Copyright © 2017