• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Bush Administration Science

jessicarabbit

Banned
J
Joined
Oct 27, 2006
Messages
555
I had to start a thread about this since it has been ignored in others.

A new york times article regarding the report of 60 scientists including several noble laureates says this

The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad… Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University who signed the statement and spoke in the conference call, said the administration had ‘engaged in practices that are in conflict with the spirit of science and the scientific method
Click to expand...

The article is at: http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/18/science/18CND-RESE.html?ex=1392526800&en=3a4ea036ff21604b&ei=5007

The report itself says

  • There is a well established pattern of suppression and distortion of scientific findings by high-ranking Bush administration political appointees across numerous federal agencies. These actions have consequences for human health, public safety, and community well-being.
  • There is strong documentation of a wide-ranging effort to manipulate the government's scientific advisory system to prevent the appearance of advice that might run counter to the administration's political agenda.
  • There is evidence that the administration often imposes restrictions on what government scientists can say or write about "sensitive" topics.
  • There is significant evidence that the scope and scale of the abuse of science by the Bush administration are unprecedented
Click to expand...


Report at: http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_in...ts-scientific-integrity-in-policy-making.html


In light of this, how can any report on 9/11 with a scientific element be trusted?

Your spin would be much appreciated
 
jessicarabbit said:
Your spin would be much appreciated
Click to expand...

You've already spun it into the ground. What science* do you think they're talking about. I want you to tell me so I know I'm conversing with an informed individual.




*Hint, they're not talking about collapsed buildings.
 
Wow, you've taken a page right out of Usual Suspect's book. Why are you behaving this way?

You brought this up in one thread. People, including me, responded to you there.

You immediately brought this up in another thread. People, including me, responded to you there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051505&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051509&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051516&postcount=21

Then you started a new thread, claiming that no one has responded to you.

Just trolling then, Jessica?
 
As someone who has worked in government science, I can say this type of thing is going on. Politics and science are a major subject here at the JREF.

Unfortunately, it's a politics issue. Not really appropriate for this section of the forum.
 
Gravy said:
Wow, you've taken a page right out of Usual Suspect's book. Why are you behaving this way?

You brought this up in one thread. People, including me, responded to you there.

You immediately brought this up in another thread. People, including me, responded to you there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051505&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051509&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051516&postcount=21

Then you started a new thread, claiming that no one has responded to you.

Just trolling then, Jessica?
Click to expand...

You refused to read it. I also brought it up in the thread started by state of grace. Stop trying to control what I write.
 
delphi_ote said:
As someone who has worked in government science, I can say this type of thing is going on. Politics and science are a major subject here at the JREF.

Unfortunately, it's a politics issue. Not really appropriate for this section of the forum.
Click to expand...


You are absolutely correct. That is what I was trying to convey in my post above. However, I think it might get wasted on its intended audience.
 
Last edited:
Gravy said:
Wow, you've taken a page right out of Usual Suspect's book. Why are you behaving this way?

You brought this up in one thread. People, including me, responded to you there.

You immediately brought this up in another thread. People, including me, responded to you there:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051505&postcount=19
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051509&postcount=20
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051516&postcount=21

Then you started a new thread, claiming that no one has responded to you.

Just trolling then, Jessica?
Click to expand...

This is the first thread I have started and I don't intend to do it often. I have asked the admin if starting this thread is trolling.
 
jessicarabbit said:
In light of this, how can any report on 9/11 with a scientific element be trusted?

Your spin would be much appreciated
Click to expand...

It means nothing to 9/11 studies, your logic is flawed.

It may mean not to trust anyone, even Docker when using a Jessica Rabbit pic, much better than Alex, but your post still give you away

this one is a great example of CT trying to prove their theories with obtuse logic.

Who can explain this better? (of course everyone)
 
The Bush administration has deliberately and systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad
Click to expand...
They're twisting facts to make their side seem right. I'm surprised this is even considered suspicious; don't CTs do that all the time?
 
beachnut said:
It means nothing to 9/11 studies, your logic is flawed.

It may mean not to trust anyone, even Docker when using a Jessica Rabbit pic, much better than Alex, but your post still give you away

this one is a great example of CT trying to prove their theories with obtuse logic.

Who can explain this better? (of course everyone)
Click to expand...
Right cut the crap and tell me why you are harassing me. Do you do this every time a woman joins the forum?
 
I am not going to close this thread. However, I expect that no more threads addressing this same subject will be opened. Additionally, since it appears the topic is "How can the Bush Administration be trusted in regards to the scientific analysis of 9/11 when they have a history of bad science" I am going to leave it here. Please stay on topic and do not use personal insults to argue your point.
Replying to this modbox in thread will be off topic  Posted By: Lisa Simpson
 
delphi_ote said:
Because politics have become involved in some of our government science, it's all untrustworthy? Talk about throwing out the baby with the bath water!
Click to expand...

In the OP they say they have evidence of scientist being influenced to not write on sensitive issues. It is very relevant.
 
jessicarabbit said:
No I asked any scientific report on 9/11 can be trusted. It isn't politics.
Click to expand...


They are not questioning 9/11 science. They are questioning the administrations scientific research and analysis on issues like stem cell research and intelligent design vs. evolution. On a basic level, critics are claiming the administration "bends" science to fit their ideologies. And they may be correct. But, this is disparate from 9/11. I recommend you do at least a little research on the issue (or any issue) beyond a Google search of "Show me Bush is bad."

If you're asserting that "hey look, they pervert science to their will, then why not the 9/11 science?" I then refer you to the above post where that is laid out for you.
 
Last edited:
jessicarabbit said:
You refused to read it. I also brought it up in the thread started by state of grace. Stop trying to control what I write.
Click to expand...
Another lie. I told you I read the report when it came out. I also showed you that the "Concerned scientists" make no mention of NIST being interfered with, nor do news reports in their archives. Why do you keep lying, Jessica? Is it that you cannot, or will not stop?

Did you also miss these posts?

You brought up the "60 scientists" report, without providing any evidence that NIST has been interfered with: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051188&postcount=1357

And again, ten minutes later:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051205&postcount=1365

My response, requesting evidence that NIST had been interfered with: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051210&postcount=1367

Rather than respond with evidence, you responded with insults:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051222&postcount=1370

Again, you didn't respond with evidence:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051234&postcount=1377

I requested your evidence again: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051244&postcount=1380

Your taunting with a lie: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051250&postcount=1383

Again I requested evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051266&postcount=1390

You declined to provided evidence and again falsely suggested that I hadn't read the report: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051274&postcount=1393

Again I ask you for evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051321&postcount=1414

You spam the link again, and again fail to provide evidence: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051325&postcount=1417

Again you ask if I've read the report, although I had already told you I had: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2051455&postcount=1459

That's not including the responses in the other thread. But you say you're being ignored.

Just trolling then, Jessica?
 
Last edited:
delphi_ote said:
Yes. They also list those issues. 9/11 isn't one of them.
Click to expand...

Not the point. If an administration is found to be suppressing and distorting science to an unprecedented degree then it can't be trusted with any official science document. How could you trust them? If someone lies about every one of their acheivements except one, are yougoing to believe the one that is true?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom