Scientists Feel Stifled by Bush Administration

Poststructural Pub
1

I know the Bush administration has refused to acknowledge global warming - or at least that humans have exacerbated the problem. I also understand that a large part of this refusal has to do with not wanting to force Bush’s friends – large corporations (oil companies, etc.) – to take steps to control emissions. An article on CNN.com states that scientists are no longer included in policy decision-making, even on environmental issues.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/science/02/21/bush.science.ap/index.html

I’m genuinely baffled. Can someone please explain this administration’s refusal to acknowledge or address global warming and its refusal to even included scientists in decision-making on that, as well as other issues?? Would they truly refuse to take steps to solve this massive problem just for a political agenda?

Susan

2

Susan - do some searching on WHY Christine Whitman stepped down as head of the EPA so quickly in Mr. Bush’s first administration. She was one of the reasons I felt “ok” voting for Bush the first time around (he had already said he would appoint her while he was campaigning).

Missy

3

I get queasier as this admin goes on.

4

Okay, I did some searching. I can find lots of “stuff” about her resignation - environmentalists say she did a crappy job but may have kept the Bush administration’s environmental record from “going from merely terrible to outright abysmal.” Big business basically said nothing, apparently hoping for a new EPA head who would be easier to control. I could spend hours searching for the bottom line - what’s your take on it, Missy?

Susan

5

Ms. Whitman has a scientific background (don’t remember off the top of my head the exact dicipline) and was instrumental in getting New Jersey cleaned up AND not penalizing business at the same time. I had high hopes that she would be able to do the same in a Federal position. (I have a lot of problems with some of the legislation the EPA has pushed through - some of it goes overboard, some of it doesn’t go far enough, most of it isn’t based on good scientific theory).

While I don’t know the exact reasons behind her resignation, I “heard” that her hands were basically tied as to what she could accomplish, and so she resigned.

I have a lot of problems with scientific policy being put in place by “politicians” in the first place. When you basically drive the people that have an understanding of science out of your administration, that’s a REAL problem.

I don’t have the time right now, but I’ll see if I can do some searching later on for some links…

Missy

6

Whitman has a BA in government and has no scientific background. In fact, apparently one of the complaints about her was that she was another in a long line (not just in this administration) of being placed in a position for which she had absolutely no qualifications. How well she did “cleaning up” New Jersey depends on who you talk to.

Susan

7

Bush has a secret agenda. When he’s rendered this planet uninhabitable, he’ll relocate to the seaside on Mars:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/in_depth/sci_tech/2003/race_for_mars/default.stm

8

I don’t know the entire truth of the matter, but it is safe to say that this is not as simple a matter as you indicate. This isn’t the scientific lock that much of the world has been convinced of. Here is at least one source that does not view the science as indicative of a global catastrophy.

http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Kyoto_Count_Up.htm

There are other links on the site that deal specifically with the validity of the science that has looked at the warming trend. Again, I’m not saying that this person is 100% correct, but I do sense some correctness. I think that probably the truth is somewhere in the middle.

Remember that “scientists” often have political agendas as well.

Erik

9

Stupid Seattle file server, going down all the time…

10

i can’t believe these f-ing a-holes sitting on their high horses.. :angry:

11

Erik, whatever the “truth” of the matter, wouldn’t you think the administration would at least want scientists in on their policy-making? However you feel about global warming, ozone depletion, wouldn’t you hope that top government officials are at least listening to scientists before setting policy on that and other matters that could affect generations to come? In environmental matters, if no scientists are being heard or are being pressured to only go along with what the administration wants, what is the administration basing their policies on? I find it frightening.

Susan

12

What does or doesn’t count as respectable science at any given time is very much a matter of consensus. I’ve heard reports like this on TV recently but, since well over 90% of the qualified scientists regard them as irresponsible, I’d like to see them address the standard arguments in a way that explains away the orthodox view without just contradicting it. (The tone on that site is very shrill for one written by competent scientists.)

There are scientists willing to work for cigarette companies. It would be much easier to argue against the significance of human activity as a cause of global warming than it would be to argue against a link between smoking and cancer. Given that, and the money that must be on offer to scientist who do break from orthodoxy, it is remarkable how few actually have done so. Perhaps the scientific ‘agenda’ here is to tell the truth. (Remember, in the past scientists have usually shown bias the other way—remember the scandalous and tragic Rachel Carson episode?)

13

I know I read in numerous areas that Whitman had some type of science background - I’ll have to do some digging…

As to science, there are always several points that one must keep in mind:

  1. there are very little accepted FACTS in science. There are theories, and these are the “best” explanation we have at this point in time. However, developments, expecially in measurement, change theories all the time.
  2. there is no such thing as “zero” in science. There is “none detected” or “below limits of detection” but no zero. We have routine analysis now in place that “see” things in 100 times smaller quantities than when I first started working in a lab 27 years ago.
  3. Published papers are done so in order that others can collaborate AND refute the findings. They, too, are not the final answer.

If you keep those three points in mind, you’ll be in a much better position to understanding scientific reporting.

Missy

14

I agree. (update: actually I hadn’t seen missy’s post, but I agree with that too). And hence my moderate tone.

I find it interesting that not too many years ago we were all going to die in the next great ice age. I’m just saying that it’s not crazy to doubt a scientific THEORY, particulary those based upon models. I’ve seen too many serious theories “revised” or entirely dropped within 20 years (or less) of their proposals.

I think that it is wise of governments to react slowly to such theories.

I’m not here to defend the Junkscience website, but the link that I gave was clearly a political reaction - though it was based upon the .07C shift. There are other more scientific articles, for example: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Arctic.htm . See also here: http://junkscience.com/MSU_Temps/Warming_Glance.htm . There are others, but I’ll let you decide upon what you’re interested.

Erik

15

So in spite of the fact that the majority of the world’s scientists in this area agree global warming is occurring and that humans do, indeed, contribute to it, you feel we should wait until it’s a known “fact” before preparing for the consequences? What would it take for scoffers to accept it as “fact?” When would be a good time to prepare for the consequences if it is, indeed, proven to be a fact? Should scientists who know more about it than politicians be included in that planning? That’s my concern, as voiced in the article I linked - scientists are having little or no input in this administration’s policy-making.

(I understand a lot about “scientific reporting” - I work in a medical research facility.)

Susan

16

I agree that scientist SHOULD be a big part of any legislation that has scientific ramifications. And that one should look at ALL the possible outcomes before passing policy.

Going back to Rachel Carson. We banned DDT, but there wasn’t a viable alternative insecticide available when we did. How many humans have suffered / died since the ban because of not having a viable way to control mosquito population? Would the bird population have survived if we had waited until we had a viable alternative? I have no idea of the answers, but I think they are important questions.

As to climate, global warming, etc… no, we can of course take measures to lower particulates. But, do we do so and increase the amount of H2SO4 in the atmosphere? What are the ramifications of that? What about the ice age theories?

Science policy cannot be made in a vacuum. There is cause and effect for EVERY action (remember the conservation of energy?). And sometimes it take really thinking “out of the box” to find helpful answers, and we can only do so with the knowledge we have at this time.

Sometimes the best we can do is the lesser of two evils.


Missy

17

They do tend to react slowly when the interests of big business are at risk but not when the interests of their consituents are at risk. How much more proof is needed of a link between smoking and cancer? Surely the dangers of asbestos were known, beyond reasonable doubt, long before the industry was reined in. I don’t think criminal charges were ever even contemplated for those who knowingly suppressed the evidence.

On the other hand, genetically modified food was on the market before the general public even knew about it. Caution doesn’t seem to be all that popular in connection with stem-cell research.

I don’t think all these cases are exactly parallel, but I do think that there is a clear tendency to protect business rather than the vulnerable individual, even though the ‘individual’ is collectively all of us, now and into the future. Kyoto is in line with this tendency, or so it seems to me.

18

The conclusion that the earth is slightly warming seems to be substantiated (mostly). The cause is in question. As a scientist, I think that you would appreciate the difference.

I’m not saying that we should do nothing. Hence my moderate tone.

As for your article, you did read it, right? I got to the end and was still looking for a fact. I might like to know who, what’s being ignored, who was pressured. Who’s budget was on the line. Are they mad because they are loosing their bread and butter or are they mad because it will negatively effect the world. Lot’s of people are going to loose their government funding in the new budget. Everyone is certain that the deficit needs to be reduced, but nobody wants it in their department. Furthermore, the AAAS http://www.aaas.org/port_policy.shtml isn’t exactly a neutral party. It is an action committee designed to promote itself and it’s members.

Finally, show me where Bush or his administration has said that humans have not contributed to warming. Again I go back to the Kyoto accord. Their reason for not signing was because it was a bad accord, not because it has no merit.

Here’s what the administration feels about the environment (according to them):

The EPA has released important new information about the unprecedented health and environmental benefits of the Clear Skies initiative that President Bush proposed in February. The President will work with Congress to strengthen the Clean Air Act through the passage of Clear Skies so we can improve air quality for all Americans.

Clear Skies will clean our skies, bring greater health to our citizens, and encourage environmentally responsible development in America and around the world.
The Clear Skies initiative will reduce air pollution from power plants by 70 percent while using a market-based system to keep electricity prices affordable for hardworking Americans. .
Cuts power plant emissions of the three worst air pollutants – nitrogen oxides, sulfur dioxide, and mercury.
The most significant step America has ever taken to address this problem.
Clear Skies will bring Americans much cleaner air, and healthier forests, lakes, and estuaries.
Many cities and towns will meet air quality standards for the first time in years.
The problem of acid rain will be virtually eliminated, which affects many lakes and forests in the Northeast.
Urban smog will be dramatically reduced and nitrogen and mercury deposition.
Protects Americans from respiratory and cardiovascular diseases.
Commits America to an aggressive strategy to cut greenhouse gas intensity by 18% over the next 10 years.
The initiative also > supports vital climate change research > and ensures that America’s workers and citizens of the developing world are not unfairly penalized.

They also say this about energy:

The President is committed to increasing the efficiency, safety, and reliability of the nation’s industrial and power facilities. His improvements to the New Source Review (NSR) regulations will provide increased flexibility and ensure that air pollution will not be increased when plants maintain and replace worn-out equipment.

The Environmental Protection Agency’s new annual air quality trends report shows that air quality in America continues to steadily improve with total emissions cut by 48 percent since 1970.

President Bush is implementing new, more stringent health-based air quality standards controlling smog and small soot particles. New diesel regulations, the President’s Clear Skies legislation (which seeks to cut power plant pollution by 70 percent using a proven market-based program), and improvements to the NSR program will help states meet those standards, even as we work to preserve and grow jobs throughout the Nation.

Sure, these are laden with one sided political propaganda, but it doesn’t sound to me like they are saying that nothing is happening.

I’m not saying that America is doing enough to combat pollution. I’m not saying that we’re spending enough on research. I am saying that your article is just as skewed as the above quotes and that the reality is likely somewhere in between.

Erik

19

The Earth is definitely going to have a major breakdown.

Whether it global warming, or a big rock falling from space, or Yellow Stone going bang, won’t make much difference.

Even if we avoid all of those (which is highly unlikely), eventually the magnetic poles of this planet will reverse polarity and cause a mass extiction of both plant and animal species.

So why worry?

Of all the above, i would say Yellow Stone is the biggest current threat. When that goes bang it’ll pump out more crap into the atmosphere in one day than humans have in the last century.

20

The fact that they make a mistake in one area does not validate mistakes made in others. I feel, as it appears that you do, that the two areas that you cite should also have been scrutinized in a more methodical way.