An editorial in today's San Diego Union-Tribune really got my attention and summed up some of the things I have noticed the current administration has done regarding science and environmental issues. The U/T is pretty conservative as far as mainstream newspapers go, but San Diego has a very large research and science community and I think this guy is pretty tuned into that. Check it out...
James Goldsborough article
The White House war against science
October 25, 2004
The politicization of science by the Bush administration goes far deeper than resistance to stem cell research. It is an issue involving the future good health and environment of the nation.
There are too many examples of Bush manipulation of scientific evidence to dismiss it as inadvertent or accidental. In several fields, the Bush administration has deliberately set out to twist and torque science in ways that put the nation at risk.
Stem cell research gets the most attention because lives are directly affected, but the same politicization and distortion of scientific data has occurred on climate change, family planning and missile defenses. In each case, the administration seeks to manipulate evidence in the same way it manipulated intelligence to justify its war in Iraq to get the conclusion, right or wrong, it wants.
Bush has brought a "higher degree of political interference" into science than other administrations, says Richard Somerville, a meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The right way is to get the best science you can, then mix in other factors such as politics and economics."
Under Bush, he says, government has sought to "torque the science beforehand with preconditions so you don't get the best results."
Tim Barnett, a Scripps climatologist, is even more blunt. "I've worked in and around Washington for 35 years," he says, "and have never seen middle level science people so afraid to diverge from administration positions." Barnett calls Bush distortions on climate change, "not only irresponsible, but a clear and present danger," especially for California and the West.
"What happens to California's water supply as the climate warms and the snowpack is reduced?" asks Somerville. "The whole system is stressed with less snow."
The issue of politicization was brought sharply to light this month when scientists and officials at NASA went public with complaints of political meddling into global warming. Scientific statements on climate change were rewritten by political appointees to mitigate the findings, they said.
James E. Hansen, a climate expert who is director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The New York Times he was compelled to speak out about the distortions because, as a scientist, "if I don't do something now, I'll regret it."
The Bush administration, said Hansen, "is picking and choosing information according to the answer that they want to get." The charge is little different from that made by former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke about intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.
The stem cell controversy has joined climate change as a central science issue in this election, and the manipulation is similar in each case. Stem cell research is an issue because Bush has wrongly linked such research to abortions and has banned public funding for new stem cell lines.
Bush uses the same abortion rationale to deny U.S. support for family planning in poor nations though evidence shows family planning helps prevent abortions. Two years ago, Bush stopped U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund over the issue of coerced abortions, even though a State Department team sent to China cleared Beijing of the charges.
It is in America's interest to help China, population 1.3 billion, control its population with family planning.
On missile defenses, Bush has ignored broad scientific advice against premature deployment.
In rejecting the Kyoto Treaty four years ago, Bush disputed the hard evidence of global warming. But scientific reaction was so strong, including from the EPA, that the White House changed tack: It admitted climate change, but, as a report stated, would "avoid any specific policy proposals" to address the problem.
"It's hard to believe they did this," says Barnett. "Global warming is not a partisan issue, it affects us all, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, whatever."
The Hansen charges, with their evidence that Bush politicos are doctoring science reports, much as Soviet party commissars used to do, have scientists on edge. "Hansen is a very courageous figure," says Somerville, "and NASA has clearly stopped trying to control what he says."
The best way to prevent Bush retaliation against scientists like Hansen is for the public to know what's going on. The doctoring of climate change documents exposed by Hansen and his colleagues took place at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, known as NOAA.
"NOAA puts a lot of money into Scripps," says Barnett, aware that any retaliation against NASA scientists could reach Scripps as well.
Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science criticized the Bush practice of asking scientists about their political views before accepting scientific advice. Too many interviews for positions as scientific adviser began with the question: "Do you support the president?"
Last week, John Kerry charged that when Bush policy "isn't supported by the facts, they change the facts." The charge rings true, first on the intelligence, now on science.
this makes me
and if we're not careful...
James Goldsborough article
The White House war against science
October 25, 2004
The politicization of science by the Bush administration goes far deeper than resistance to stem cell research. It is an issue involving the future good health and environment of the nation.
There are too many examples of Bush manipulation of scientific evidence to dismiss it as inadvertent or accidental. In several fields, the Bush administration has deliberately set out to twist and torque science in ways that put the nation at risk.
Stem cell research gets the most attention because lives are directly affected, but the same politicization and distortion of scientific data has occurred on climate change, family planning and missile defenses. In each case, the administration seeks to manipulate evidence in the same way it manipulated intelligence to justify its war in Iraq to get the conclusion, right or wrong, it wants.
Bush has brought a "higher degree of political interference" into science than other administrations, says Richard Somerville, a meteorologist at Scripps Institution of Oceanography. "The right way is to get the best science you can, then mix in other factors such as politics and economics."
Under Bush, he says, government has sought to "torque the science beforehand with preconditions so you don't get the best results."
Tim Barnett, a Scripps climatologist, is even more blunt. "I've worked in and around Washington for 35 years," he says, "and have never seen middle level science people so afraid to diverge from administration positions." Barnett calls Bush distortions on climate change, "not only irresponsible, but a clear and present danger," especially for California and the West.
"What happens to California's water supply as the climate warms and the snowpack is reduced?" asks Somerville. "The whole system is stressed with less snow."
The issue of politicization was brought sharply to light this month when scientists and officials at NASA went public with complaints of political meddling into global warming. Scientific statements on climate change were rewritten by political appointees to mitigate the findings, they said.
James E. Hansen, a climate expert who is director of NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies, told The New York Times he was compelled to speak out about the distortions because, as a scientist, "if I don't do something now, I'll regret it."
The Bush administration, said Hansen, "is picking and choosing information according to the answer that they want to get." The charge is little different from that made by former White House anti-terrorism adviser Richard Clarke about intelligence used to justify the war in Iraq.
The stem cell controversy has joined climate change as a central science issue in this election, and the manipulation is similar in each case. Stem cell research is an issue because Bush has wrongly linked such research to abortions and has banned public funding for new stem cell lines.
Bush uses the same abortion rationale to deny U.S. support for family planning in poor nations though evidence shows family planning helps prevent abortions. Two years ago, Bush stopped U.S. contributions to the U.N. Population Fund over the issue of coerced abortions, even though a State Department team sent to China cleared Beijing of the charges.
It is in America's interest to help China, population 1.3 billion, control its population with family planning.
On missile defenses, Bush has ignored broad scientific advice against premature deployment.
In rejecting the Kyoto Treaty four years ago, Bush disputed the hard evidence of global warming. But scientific reaction was so strong, including from the EPA, that the White House changed tack: It admitted climate change, but, as a report stated, would "avoid any specific policy proposals" to address the problem.
"It's hard to believe they did this," says Barnett. "Global warming is not a partisan issue, it affects us all, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, whatever."
The Hansen charges, with their evidence that Bush politicos are doctoring science reports, much as Soviet party commissars used to do, have scientists on edge. "Hansen is a very courageous figure," says Somerville, "and NASA has clearly stopped trying to control what he says."
The best way to prevent Bush retaliation against scientists like Hansen is for the public to know what's going on. The doctoring of climate change documents exposed by Hansen and his colleagues took place at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, known as NOAA.
"NOAA puts a lot of money into Scripps," says Barnett, aware that any retaliation against NASA scientists could reach Scripps as well.
Last year, the American Association for the Advancement of Science criticized the Bush practice of asking scientists about their political views before accepting scientific advice. Too many interviews for positions as scientific adviser began with the question: "Do you support the president?"
Last week, John Kerry charged that when Bush policy "isn't supported by the facts, they change the facts." The charge rings true, first on the intelligence, now on science.
this makes me
and if we're not careful...
Global warming is not a partisan issue, it affects us all, Republicans, Democrats, Greens, whatever.
It's not like I worry about it every day, but crazy shit can happen in a relatively short time frame (decades, not that The Day After Tomorrow crap). Methane hydrates melting offshore, rapid greenhouse warming, sea level rise, climate shifts (fertile areas move north, desert expands).
The fact that the US backed out of the Kyoto Treaty thanks to George W is a huge issue and one that is definitely overlooked.