JohnRich 4 #26 February 24, 2004 QuoteToday, more than 60 leading scientists issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. It seems that the Union of Concerned Scientists might have a few integrity problems of their own... Extract: "Committed to an 'open-minded search for truth,' and armed with 'unrivaled scientific expertise,' the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 'doesn’t say anything [it] can’t back up with solid evidence.' At least, that’s what its fund-raising letters say. The reality is quite different. "UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the 'rigorous scientific analysis' it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s 'experts' are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda. "Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then they manipulate or misconstrue the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was 'a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.' Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved 'profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community...'" More... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonSanta 0 #27 February 24, 2004 Check out the full report if you want to find a listing, complete with references, to the alleged acts of misconduct. Whether you agree with the reports or not (if you do, I expect you to have a very good understanding of the topics at hand - preferrably you'd be as much of an expert as the scientists doing them), it's pretty clear that the administration has tried to supress, distort or otherwise manipulate with results. Not proving them wrong or examining them, but flat outright manipulating with them. I'd recommend anyone to read the report and check up on the references. There are numerous to pick from. Mebbe those cocerrned scientist dudes are wrong a bout loads of things. I checked a few of their references - they held up, so I bet tehre is *soething* to it all. Santa Von GrossenArsch I only come in one flavour ohwaitthatcanbemisunderst Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #28 February 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteOnly 47 in Chemistry and Physics in total, and many of them are now dead. Um, where did you get the number 47 from? . National Science Foundation website. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that some Nobel laureates might not be from the USA.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhillyKev 0 #29 February 24, 2004 QuoteNational Science Foundation website. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that some Nobel laureates might not be from the USA. Leftist propaganda if I ever heard it. Next you'll tell me some were actually from France!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #30 February 24, 2004 Did anyone say the only people to sign are Americans? Are foreigners working the US excluded from signing? Maybe next time if you provide the link to your information, I wouldn't have to look for myself and find tangential information. QuoteQuoteUm, where did you get the number 47 from? National Science Foundation website. Maybe it hasn't occurred to you that some Nobel laureates might not be from the USA I don't ever want to hear you complaining about quoting out of context ever again. That, or I'd like to hear you say you didn't bother to read my entire post. To quote myself: Quote That's 2% of award winners. Assuming half of all recipients are dead, that's 4%. Assuming another half are foreign or just don't care, that still only amounts to 8% of possible signers. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
b1jercat 0 #31 February 24, 2004 QuoteQuoteToday, more than 60 leading scientists issued a statement calling for regulatory and legislative action to restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking. It seems that the Union of Concerned Scientists might have a few integrity problems of their own... Extract: "Committed to an 'open-minded search for truth,' and armed with 'unrivaled scientific expertise,' the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) 'doesn’t say anything [it] can’t back up with solid evidence.' At least, that’s what its fund-raising letters say. The reality is quite different. "UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the 'rigorous scientific analysis' it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s 'experts' are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses their radical agenda. "Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then they manipulate or misconstrue the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was 'a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.' Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved 'profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community...'" More... I agree with you John you can't trust those three letter organizations, UCS, NRA they all lie to promote their own agenda. blue skies jerry Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #32 February 24, 2004 Someone else made that assertion today. Would you care to provide evidence of the NRA lying to promote their "agenda?"witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Kennedy 0 #33 February 24, 2004 This list of Black Eyes the organization has given itself seems pretinent to the discussion QuoteBlack Eye By any real scientific yardstick, the Union of Concerned Scientists has a lousy track record. Their predictions are often laughably, and sometimes tragically, wrong. A few examples: In 1998 UCS issued a report saying that the threat of North Korea developing nuclear weapons was exaggerated and that the bellicose nation posed no imminent danger. In 1997 UCS organized a petition that warned of “global warming” and advocated U.S. ratification of the Kyoto treaty. It was signed by 1,600 scientists, and so UCS declared that “the scientific community has reached a consensus.” But when a counter-petition that questioned this so-called “consensus” was signed by more than 17,000 other scientists, UCS declared it a “deliberate attempt to deceive the scientific community with misinformation.” UCS invested significant resources in “a multiyear effort to protect Bacillus thuringiensis, a valuable natural pesticide, by bringing high visibility to a preliminary report on the toxic effect of transgenic [biotech] corn pollen on the Monarch Butterfly.” Unfortunately for them, both the USDA and the EPA have concluded that Bt corn is only a threat to the crop-devastating insects it’s supposed to kill. Based, we suppose, on some “science” or other, UCS’s Margaret Mellon predicted in 1999 that American farmers would reduce their planting of genetically enhanced seeds in the year 2000, saying it “probably represents a turning point.” What happened? Just the reverse. Planting of biotech crops has increased in 2000, 2001 and 2002 -- and shows no sign of slowing down. In 1980 UCS predicted that the earth would soon run out of fossil fuels. “It is now abundantly clear,” the group wrote, “that the world has entered a period of chronic energy shortages.” Oops! Known reserves of oil, coal and natural gas have never been higher, and show every sign of increasing. To improve fuel efficiency, UCS argues for lighter tires on SUVs. But lighter tires are blamed -- even by Ralph’s Nader’s Public Citizen -- for tread separation. 148 deaths and more than 500 injuries were attributed to tread separation in Firestone tires alone. UCS apparently hasn’t learned from its many, many mistakes. But if at first you don’t succeed, scare, scare again. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1* Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
mnischalke 0 #34 February 24, 2004 QuoteSomeone else made that assertion today. Would you care to provide evidence of the NRA lying to promote their "agenda?" Of course not. Then they would have to lie to promote their own agenda. This whole thing is the biggest joke I have ever read. Based on the little bit of "evidence" in their totally vague allegations, I think it really all comes down to a group of over-educated folks who purport--among other similar items--the whole global warming issue. They aren't getting anywhere with this administration (ummm, can you say no funding/federal grants for imaginary science projects???), so since we're not all driving around in our little environmentally friendly, soy-powered hybred, papier-mache vehicles yet, they put their little group together to bash the administration. There are lots of scientists out there who claim man-made global warming is dog shit. Hell, from what I have read one kick-ass volcanic eruption would do more to the ozone than human beings could do in the next million years. I am motivated to go home and remove the catalytic converter behind my 350hp/350ci chevy smallblock just for grins now. mike Girls only want boyfriends who have great skills--You know, like nunchuk skills, bow-hunting skills, computer-hacking skills. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
FrogNog 1 #35 February 24, 2004 QuoteIf you haven't read an NRA report that wasn't skewed, slanted or wrong, you haven't read very many of them. I believe his statement was that he has never seen "incorrect data", not skewed or slanted. "Wrong" could certainly mean "incorrect" or "unethical", so there is some ambiguity there. As an NRA member, I find it painful to witness their propaganda. I know _I_ don't need that kind of crap, but I guess getting such a large group together requires the ol' LCD approach. Personally I see NRA data and try to remember which logical fallacy or statistical representation "trick" or sampling failure is being employed (if any). In the end, it just backs up my statement that in a bipolar debate, moderation is surrender. -=-=-=-=- Pull. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
