Land Study on Grazing Denounced

[Orwell]

Land Study on Grazing Denounced

The Bush administration altered critical portions of a scientific analysis of the environmental impact of cattle grazing on public lands before announcing Thursday that it would relax regulations limiting grazing on those lands, according to scientists involved in the study.

A government biologist and a hydrologist, who both retired this year from the Bureau of Land Management, said their conclusions that the proposed new rules might adversely affect water quality and wildlife, including endangered species, were excised and replaced with language justifying less stringent regulations favored by cattle ranchers.

I guess this must be another one of them "faith based" initiatives.

 

[peptoabysmal]

hmmm...

I have been told this since the JFK days; that "Republicans are the ones who back industry and big business at the expense of agriculture'. Democrats were supposedly more protectionist of agriculture. Go figure.

BTW I don't have and neither will I obtain a subscription to the LA times.

 

[Orwell]

Try this.

I don't care if you are a democrat or a republican or Tarquin Fintimlinbinwhinbimlim Bus Stop Poontang Poontang Ole Biscuit-Barrel of the Silly Party: you don't alter the results of a scientific study for political reasons! If you don't wanna do what the scientists tell you you should do (which can be a perfectly legitimate political choice), then you clearly say so, you explain why, and you take responsibility for your actions!

 

[TragicMonkey]

you don't alter the results of a scientific study for political reasons! If you don't wanna do what the scientists tell you you should do (which can be a perfectly legitimate political choice), then you clearly say so, you explain why, and you take responsibility for your actions!

If they didn't do it for the forests, or for the air pollution studies, or global warming, or reports on nutrition, or abortion and risk of breast cancer, or Terry Schiavo's decayed brain, what makes you think they'll refrain from adjusting science for grasslands?

Science is like interior decoration: you can hire somebody to fix things up for a lot of money, but if you don't like the result, you're free to change it however you like. It's your dollar, right? And telling people what they want to hear is exactly how you become popular and electable.

 

[RandFan]

I don't think it was right to change the document. However I won't jump to the conclusion that the scientists were right. Is this study peer reviewed? Do the scientists have political axes to grind?

 

[SezMe]

I don't think it was right to change the document. However I won't jump to the conclusion that the scientists were right. Is this study peer reviewed? Do the scientists have political axes to grind?

Very reasonable questions, RandFan. But it seems to me that altering a document containing scientific findings puts the onus of "proof" on the other foot. IOW, now that it is clear (you accept the evidence) that scientific conclusions were altered, isn't the burden of evidence on the administration to show that the alterations did not change the science? That those who made the changes did not have "political axes to grind?" That "the facts were made to fit the policy" (to quote from another famous memo) did not happen here?

 

[RandFan]

Very reasonable questions, RandFan. But it seems to me that altering a document containing scientific findings puts the onus of "proof" on the other foot. IOW, now that it is clear (you accept the evidence) that scientific conclusions were altered, isn't the burden of evidence on the administration to show that the alterations did not change the science? That those who made the changes did not have "political axes to grind?" That "the facts were made to fit the policy" (to quote from another famous memo) did not happen here?

Let me see if I follow your logic, since the administration altered the document I should assume the document is accurate? Something seems wrong with this. I don't assume one way or the other. I said I'm not going to jump to a conclusion that the documents are correct. If the administration claims that the conclusions of the scientists are wrong then it is up to the administration to prove that.

The document seems to me to stand on its own, it is what it is. It IS in and of itself evidence. However, lacking peer-review I don't see why I should assume that it is correct. I'm willing to consider it. I would love to read the original and I would love for it to be peer reviewed.

I'll ask again, has it been and do the individuals have any political axes to grind?

 

[Rob Lister]

Let me see if I follow your logic, since the administration altered the document I should assume the document is accurate? Something seems wrong with this. I don't assume one way or the other. I said I'm not going to jump to a conclusion that the documents are correct. If the administration claims that the conclusions of the scientists are wrong then it is up to the administration to prove that.

The document seems to me to stand on its own, it is what it is. It IS in and of itself evidence. However, lacking peer-review I don't see why I should assume that it is correct. I'm willing to consider it. I would love to read the original and I would love for it to be peer reviewed.

I'll ask again, has it been and do the individuals have any political axes to grind?

Thank you for writing exactly to what I could not get my arms around. I read the linked article and it appears that the BLF altered the document written by the BLF. It also appears that what they altered were the 'official' opinions [conclusions] presented by one set of BLF employees with the opinions [conclusions] of another set of BLF employees. Not having access to either document -- draft or final -- it is impossible for me to conclude that either conclusion was more likely correct than the other.

On another note, I find it unlikely, strictly from a skeptical POV, that either conclusion is likely true. Both seem to spin in particularly political directions; one to the left and one to the right.

 

[Megalodon]

Let me see if I follow your logic, since the administration altered the document I should assume the document is accurate?

Let me ask you a question: Do you normally go around questioning all "scientific analysis of the environmental impact" or you just limit your scope to the ones altered by politicians?

Something seems wrong with this. I don't assume one way or the other.

On the contrary, you (and everybody else) always assume one way. And trusting science over politics is normally the way to go...

I said I'm not going to jump to a conclusion that the documents are correct. If the administration claims that the conclusions of the scientists are wrong then it is up to the administration to prove that.

So, until they are proven wrong, you are assuming they are correct.

The document seems to me to stand on its own, it is what it is. It IS in and of itself evidence. However, lacking peer-review I don't see why I should assume that it is correct.

You don't have peer-review in environmental impact reports. But you have them open for public consultation, and the science in them can be challenged.

I'm willing to consider it. I would love to read the original and I would love for it to be peer reviewed.

I'll ask again, has it been and do the individuals have any political axes to grind?

Your spin in the matter is curious... Politicians alter a scientific report, and you wonder if the scientists have an axe to grind... Curious.

 

[RandFan]

Let me ask you a question: Do you normally go around questioning all "scientific analysis of the environmental impact" or you just limit your scope to the ones altered by politicians?

Science and politics make for a poor mix. When it comes to these issues personal opinion sadly gets in the way of objectivity too often (IMO). Why did the administration alter the document? Do I only have one choice in the matter?

On the contrary, you (and everybody else) always assume one way. And trusting science over politics is normally the way to go...

Are you saying that they are mutually exclusive? Scientists never engage in politics? Scientists never allow their personal opinions to get in the way of objectivity? Come on, I think you know better.

So, until they are proven wrong, you are assuming they are correct.

No, I'm assuming that this is an issue that bears further investigation. It is called skepticism. As Michael Shermer puts it, question both the scientists and the skeptics (paraphrased).

You don't have peer-review in environmental impact reports. But you have them open for public consultation, and the science in them can be challenged.

I'm not talking about a formal process here. It is possible for others in the appropriate field to look at the data and offer comment. This informal process is also known as "peer review".

Your spin in the matter is curious... Politicians alter a scientific report, and you wonder if the scientists have an axe to grind... Curious.

Hardly curious at all. If there was no reason to "WONDER" there would be no need for peer review now would there?

Megalodon,

It's hard to find the truth if you think you already have it. Assuming scientists are infallible or not subject to ego or bias is willfully ignorant of both history and human nature.

Good science requires objectivity, critical thinking and a healthy dose of skepticism. If I were forced by gun point to choose between a politician and a scientist I would choose the scientist. Hardly a reason to check my skepticism at the door as it relates to this issue however.

 

[Orwell]

Randfan, have you read the article in its entirety?

A bureau official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis and said they were part of a standard editing and review process.

All fine and dandy, but...

Ranchers hailed the regulations as a signal of new openness from the administration.

And then:

The new rules, published Friday by the BLM, a division of the Department of Interior, ensures ranchers expanded access to public land and requires federal land managers to conduct protracted studies before taking action to limit that access.

The rules reverse a long-standing agency policy that gave BLM experts the authority to quickly determine whether livestock grazing was inflicting damage.

The regulations also eliminate the agency's obligation to seek public input on some grazing decisions. Public comment will be allowed but not required.

To me, it sounds like the administration was seeking to accommodate the cattle industry. As far as I can tell, the changes were made without scientific justification (if there was a scientific reason, I would like to see it). It seems to me that these changes are being made for political reasons, and that the science is being altered to fit these reasons. Intellectual honesty demands that, if you don't agree with the science, you provide a scientific reason why you don't agree, and you start a debate. If you don't care about the science because it isn't politically convenient, then you say so clearly and you explain why, in this case, politics should take precedence over science.

You are also not taking into consideration that this is not the first time this administration has been accused of fudging scientific results and playing footsie with the work of scientists!

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, have you read the article in its entirety?

No, it requires a sign in.

It is obvious that these changes are not being made for "scientific reasons"!

I never thought otherwise. That something is political does not mean that it is wrong. That something is scientific does not mean that it is correct (see fallacy)

You are also not taking into consideration that this is not the first time this administration has been accused of fudging scientific results and playing footsie with the work of scientists!

I'm quite skeptical of Bush et al. This does not however prove the accuracy of the document in question.

 

[RandFan]

To me, it sounds like the administration was seeking to accommodate the cattle industry.

The cattle industry is a constituent. There is nothing untoward about seeking to accomodate industry and agriculture. It is called politics.

As far as I can tell, the changes were made without scientific justification (if there was a scientific reason, I would like to see it).

Fair, I would like to see comments on both sides.

It seems to me that these changes are being made for political reasons...

No, get out, really? A politician doing things for political reasons doesn't that beat all.

...and that the science is being altered to fit these reasons.

Could be, it could be that the administration doesn't agree with the opinion of the scientists and thought it was appropriate to change the document. I'm not certain that they are correct.

Intellectual honesty demands that, if you don't agree with the science, you provide a scientific reason why you don't agree, and you start a debate.

In a perfect world, sure.

 

[Orwell]

No, it requires a sign in.

I provided a yahoo link. Check the third post on the thread. You mean to tell me you are commenting on a document you haven't read?

I never thought otherwise. That something is political does not mean that it is wrong. That something is scientific does not mean that it is correct (see fallacy)

I'm quite skeptical of Bush et al. This does not however prove the accuracy of the document in question.

I'm not arguing about the accuracy of the document, that's besides the point. I'm arguing that it is intellectually dishonest to modify a scientific document to fit a political agenda. The only legitimate way to change a scientific document is introducing new science.

If there's a political agenda that keeps you from following the recommendations of scientists, fine. Just come out, say it, and bare the responsibility of your actions. Don't weasel out by changing the science.

 

[Charlie Monoxide]

The altering of scientific studies is a sign of leadership ....

Charlie (just not the "good" kind) Monoxide

 

[RandFan]

I provided a yahoo link. Check the third post on the thread. You mean to tell me you are commenting on a document you haven't read?

No, I'm commenting on the information that you have supplied. Come on Orwell, you know my stance on this. You should be able to make logic and rational argument HERE. It is quite appropriate for me to comment on anything you post HERE. If you would like a serious discussion of the issues then post what you think are the pertinent points and we will discuss those. I'm happy to look at the article from yahoo.

I'm not arguing about the accuracy of the document, that's beside the point. I'm arguing that it is intellectually dishonest to modify a scientific document to fit a political agenda. The only legitimate way to change a scientific document is introducing new science.

Perhaps it was modified to fit what was believed to be the truth. There is nothing sacrosanct about science Orwell. Science is often used to justify specious reasoning. I don't know if that was the case here. Did the administration belive the document was unfairly skewed to a certain political view point?

If there's a political agenda that keeps you from following the recommendations of scientists, fine. Just come out, say it, and bare the responsibility of your actions. Don't weasel out by changing the science.

I think you have a skewed view of politics. I don't justify any actions on the grounds of politics. I do however understand the actions on such grounds. I'm not convinced that this is as devious as you suggest but I'm keeping an open mind. I'd like to know more about the scientists and the background of the documents.

Orwell, things are not always as they appear.

 

[pgwenthold]

Could be, it could be that the administration doesn't agree with the opinion of the scientists and thought it was appropriate to change the document.

So why bother with getting scientists opinions in the first place if they are just going to ignore them and do whatever they want?

If the scientist gives them a perspective they like, they can say, "We have scientific support." If the scientist doesn't give them what they want, they can change the report and say, "We have scientific support."

I'd prefer they just be honest and skip the pretense of caring what scientists think.

 

[RandFan]

From your link.

Some conservation groups seized on the studies to mount a campaign to eliminate grazing on public land altogether, prompting a backlash that accused environmentalists of engaging in "rural cleansing" that would drive families off the land, some of whom had been there since the 19th century.

 

[RandFan]

So why bother with getting scientists opinions in the first place if they are just going to ignore them and do whatever they want?

If the scientist gives them a perspective they like, they can say, "We have scientific support." If the scientist doesn't give them what they want, they can change the report and say, "We have scientific support."

I'd prefer they just be honest and skip the pretense of caring what scientists think.

Sounds fair to me.

 

[Orwell]

No, I'm commenting on the information that you have supplied. Come on Orwell, you know my stance on this. You should be able to make logic and rational argument HERE. It is quite appropriate for me to comment on anything you post HERE. If you would like a serious discussion of the issues then post what you think are the pertinent points and we will discuss those. I'm happy to look at the article from yahoo.

The information I supplied included links to the articles I was quoting. I actually went to the trouble of providing two different links to the same article.

Perhaps it was modified to fit what was believed to be the truth. There is nothing sacrosanct about science Orwell. Science is often used to justify specious reasoning. I don't know if that was the case here. Did the administration belive the document was unfairly skewed to a certain political view point?

It doesn't matter if a document based on science (I'm assuming that this document was essentially a scientific assessment) reflects the political opinions of the people who made it: if they can back their opinion (which may be have been initially based on political prejudices) with sound science, then they can argue that they're closer to the "truth" than their adversaries. The fact that you're ideologically motivated doesn't mean that you're wrong. If those that don't agree with a conslusion arrived at by scientific methods want to scientifically support their point of view, they will have to provide better data and new interpretations. Politicians have the right to ignore a scientific study by appealing to political reasons, of course, but then they can't claim the support of science. According to the quoted articles, this administration changed the wording of a scientific study, and they were hoping they could get away with it. If it turns out that these scientists were right, and that the increase in grazing this administration is allowing has serious ecological consequences, who is going to be held responsible?

I think you have a skewed view of politics. I don't justify any actions on the grounds of politics. I do however understand the actions on such grounds. I'm not convinced that this is as devious as you suggest but I'm keeping an open mind. I'd like to know more about the scientists and the background of the documents.

Yes, I have a certain ideological bend. But I'm not blinded by it, and I try to be reasonable and objective. I try not to play "partisan politics". I think I should remind you that the scientific community has repeatedly accused the Bush administration of disregarding scientific research that didn't provide them with convenient results. Worse yet, they have been accused of disregarding it by appealing to bad fuzzy science and questionable data. These guys what to have their cake and eat it too: they want the legitimacy of science, but they don't care about it's methods and concusions. I guarantee you, if a Democratic administration had done the same thing, I would be pissed off too!

Orwell, things are not always as they appear.

Yes, and thanks to the lack of respect for science and scientists displayed by this administration, it is becoming increasingly difficult to determine how things really are!