Land Study on Grazing Denounced

[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 support their point of view, they will have to provide better data and new interpretations. They have the right not to do so, of course, but then they can't claim the support of science. When it comes to science, this administration is trying to have their cake and eat it too: they alter scientific results to fit with their politics, and then they claim that their reasons to do so are based on 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.

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 the results they wanted. 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!

One question: 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?

 

[Orwell]

This should back up some of my points:

The New Science Wars: Is George W. Bush's the most anti-science administration in modern times? (This article comes from the Skeptical Inquirer page)

For Bush, science is a dirty word

Panelists Decry Bush Science Policies

About Politics & Science
The State of Science Under the Bush Administration

Ranking Scientists Warn Bush Science Policy Lacks Integrity

And there are many more!

 

[Ed]

Land Study on Grazing Denounced

Well, I gotta ask, how adversely? What are the considerations?

Somehow, just because it is "science" does not absolutely define best policy.





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

 

[Orwell]

What are you trying to say, Ed?

 

[Ed]

Land Study on Grazing Denounced

Well, I gotta ask, how adversely? What are the considerations?

Somehow, just because it is "science" does not absolutely define best policy.





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

Sorry.....

I wrote that a scientific pronouncement has no bearing on policy, necessarily.

A word of explination: I think GW is an idiot but you are so negative (as are others) that I tend to be a bit more "pro" sounding than I really am.

 

[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!

 

[RandFan]

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.

So? I didn't see the second link but that really is beside the point. I don't come here to debate arguments made by other people on other web sites. I'm interested in what you have to say. That is why I only commented on what YOU had to say. Chill out. If you want me to discuss something then post it. Don't demand that I read every thing on some web site. If you don't like my responses then ignore me. I have every right to respond to what I want to. This is a free country. The onus is on you to make your case and not rely on others to do it for you.

It doesn't matter 1 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 2 that they're closer to the "truth" than their adversaries. 3 The fact that you're ideologically motivated doesn't mean that you're wrong. 4 If those that don't agree with a conslusion arrived at by scientific methods want to support their point of view, they will have to provide better data and new interpretations. Politicians have the right to appeal to political reasons, of course, 5 but then they can't claim the support of science. If it turns out that these scientists were right, and that the increase in grazing this administration is allowing has serious ecological consequences, 6 who is going to be held responsible?

Sorry dude, you are rambling and your thoughts disjointed.

1. If the document is a reflection of a political POV what good is it? Science should be neutral. What "sound science" are you talking about? That is the question at hand. Is this "sound science"?
   
2. "Closer to the truth"? I'm simply asking what the truth is?
   
3. I never said that political motivation was an indicator of truth or correctness. This is just a straw man as far as I can tell. The politics is reason to question the science.
   
4. In a perfect world, sure. I have said that if those who have altered the document dispute any of the findings then it is up to them to prove their case. We are not talking perfect world here and we are not talking a scientific process. We are talking politics. Don't confuse politics and science.
   
5. In a perfect world you are right.
   
6. Hard to say, the politicians who screwed up should be but some times we hold politicians responsible and sometimes we don't.[/list=1]
   
   In any event this is all besides the point. My point was and still is, that I'm not jumping to conclusions. Now, is there something about that, that you do not get?
   
   

   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".

   Oh really?
   
   

   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. I guarantee you, if a Democratic administration had done the same thing, I would be pissed off too!

   That's nice, I can assure you that if the same were said about a Democratic administration I would be skeptical also.
   
   

   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!

   Rhetorical, am I suppose to respond to this?
   
   I don't excuse politicians for practicing politics. I understand it. I understood Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr., and others, hell I even understood Nixon though I think he was decidedly wrong and his actions were criminal.
   
   In any event, I'm skeptical of environmental claims and I don't always simply assume something is true just because some scientist said it was.
   
   What is it you want from me? What do you want me to do? Do you want me to get mad at Bush and his administration? Do you want me to accept the claims against them at face value? What exactly?

 

[Manny]

I just want to mention how impressed I am that the guy who invented the instant camera all those years ago is still around to produce a Study on Grazing, denounced or not!

 

[CapelDodger]

Is this study peer reviewed?

Had it been published in its original form it could have been peer-reviewed now, but that opportunity seems to have been lost. So you'll never know if it was accurate.

 

[Orwell]

So? I didn't see the second link but that really is beside the point. I don't come here to debate arguments made by other people on other web sites. I'm interested in what you have to say. That is why I only commented on what YOU had to say. Chill out. If you want me to discuss something then post it. Don't demand that I read every thing on some web site. If you don't like my responses then ignore me. I have every right to respond to what I want to. This is a free country. The onus is on you to make your case and not rely on others to do it for you.

I have made my point of view clear since the beginning. My point of view was based on an article (a news article that only relates events) for which I provided links. Yes, you have every right to respond to whatever you want, it,s juts that if you don't read the links used by someone to make a point, you risk looking like a person that bases opinions on knee-jerk reactions.

Sorry dude, you are rambling and your thoughts disjointed.

1. If the document is a reflection of a political POV what good is it? Science should be neutral. What "sound science" are you talking about? That is the question at hand. Is this "sound science"?

1. 
   
   I am not rambling. My thoughts aren't disjointed. I don't know if this is sound science or not and that wasn't the point. The point is that, according to the article, this was "a scientific analysis" that supported a view opposed by the administration. According to the article, the conclusions were excised and replaced with "language" much more in agreement with what the administration wanted to hear. Where's the science in this? I only see politics.
   
   

   
   [*]"Closer to the truth"? I'm simply asking what the truth is?

   
   How are we suppose to even get close to the "truth" if politics blatantly interferes with scientific results?
   
   

   
   [*]I never said that political motivation was an indicator of truth or correctness. This is just a straw man as far as I can tell. The politics is reason to question the science.

   
   You didn't get my point. In science, it's generally not the opinion (ort the politics) of the person that counts, it's the data and reasoning that the person presents in defence of the opinion that is important.
   
   

   
   [*]In a perfect world, sure. I have said that if those who have altered the document dispute any of the findings then it is up to them to prove their case. We are not talking perfect world here and we are not talking a scientific process. We are talking politics. Don't confuse politics and science.

   
   I am not confusing politics and science. The Bush administration is the one who is confusing politics with science.
   
   

   
   [*]In a perfect world you are right.

   
   Does this mean that, in an imperfect world, I am wrong? Never mind...
   
   

   
   In any event this is all besides the point. My point was and still is, that I'm not jumping to conclusions. Now, is there something about that, that you do not get?
   
   That's nice, I can assure you that if the same were said about a Democratic administration I would be skeptical also.

   
   I am not as sceptical as usual because this has happened in the past, with other scientific disciplines. This is one of many cases of abuse of science by the Bush administration
   
   

   
   Rhetorical, am I suppose to respond to this?

   
   You don't have to.
   
   

   
   I don't excuse politicians for practicing politics. I understand it. I understood Clinton, Reagan, Bush Sr., and others, hell I even understood Nixon though I think he was decidedly wrong and his actions were criminal.

   
   I understand the administration too, but understanding doesn't mean justifying. You sound like you are justifying. If you are not justifying this action, please say so.
   
   

   
   In any event, I'm skeptical of environmental claims and I don't always simply assume something is true just because some scientist said it was.

   
   That's besides the point: if you don't assume that something is true just because some scientist said it was, that's all fine and dandy. It's your right and it makes heaps of sense! But then you clearly say so, and you don't alter the results of the scientist you don't agree with so that they reflect your opinion.
   
   

   
   What is it you want from me? What do you want me to do? Do you want me to get mad at Bush and his administration?

   
   This is what I want you to understand:
   
   You don't alter the results of a scientific study for political reasons. You only alter the results of a scientific study for scientific 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!
   
   Does this sound reasonable to you?
   
   

   
   Do you want me to accept the claims against them at face value? What exactly?

   
   I am willing to accept these claims for one very simple reason: this follows a pattern of repeated abuse of science by the Bush administration. It wasn't the first time they did something like this. It won't probably be the last either.

 

[Orwell]

Dinner time!

 

[RandFan]

Had it been published in its original form it could have been peer-reviewed now, but that opportunity seems to have been lost. So you'll never know if it was accurate.

I don't see why, could you explain? Has any of the data significantly changed?

 

[RandFan]

I have made my point of view clear since the beginning. My point of view was based on an article (a news article that only relates events) for which I provided links. Yes, you have every right to respond to whatever you want, it,s juts that if you don't read the links used by someone to make a point, you risk looking like a person that bases opinions on knee-jerk reactions.

What knee-jerk reaction? Go back and read my opening posts. I said I would NOT jump to conclusions. Where do you get knee-jerk from that?

I am not rambling. My thoughts aren't disjointed.

IMO they are.

I don't know if this is sound science or not and that wasn't the point. The point is that, according to the article, this was "a scientific analysis" that supported a view opposed by the administration. According to the article, the conclusions were excised and replaced with "language" much more in agreement with what the administration wanted to hear. Where's the science in this? I only see politics.

Are you going to argue this ad nauseam? If you want to advance your argument you are going to have to make a different argument.

How are we suppose to even get close to the "truth" if politics blatantly interferes with scientific results?

Your complaining about the rising of the tide.

You didn't get my point. In science, it's generally not the opinion (ort the politics) of the person that counts, it's the data and reasoning that the person presents in defence of the opinion that is important.

And my point is that I don't know what the truth is and I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I am not confusing politics and science. The Bush administration is the one who is confusing politics with science.

No, the Bush administration is practicing politics.

Does this mean that, in an imperfect world, I am wrong? Never mind...

No, it means that we live in the real world and we have to accept reality.

I am not as sceptical as usual because this has happened in the past, with other scientific disciplines. This is one of many cases of abuse of science by the Bush administration

So you claim.

I understand the administration too, but understanding doesn't mean justifying. You sound like you are justifying. If you are not justifying this action, please say so.

No, I'm saying that you are complaining about politicians doing what politicians do best. I don't excuse it or justify it.

That's besides the point: if you don't assume that something is true just because some scientist said it was, that's all fine and dandy. It's your right and it makes heaps of sense! But then you clearly say so, and you don't alter the results of the scientist you don't agree with so that they reflect your opinion.

In fantasy land, yes, I agree with you. I wish all of our politicians were honest. I wish the media didn't get it so wrong so often.

You don't alter the results of a scientific study for political reasons. You only alter the results of a scientific study for scientific 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!

Rrrriiiiight! Politicians are now Boy Scouts. Look, I don't mean to be cynical. It really is not my purpose here. I said from the very start that the document should not have been changed. The point is, is that I'm not getting all weak in the knees over the incident. Changing the document was wrong, lots of things are wrong. Perhaps the administration doesn't see eye to eye with your particular morality. I can't honestly say I'm too terribly concerned about it myself. If the science behind it was politically motivated and I don't know that it was then perhaps your route was not the one that would most likely yield success for Bush and the administration.

I am willing to accept these claims for one very simple reason: this follows a pattern of repeated abuse of science by the Bush administration. It wasn't the first time they did something like this. It won't probably be the last either.

So you claim.

 

[Orwell]

What knee-jerk reaction? Go back and read my opening posts. I said I would NOT jump to conclusions. Where do you get knee-jerk from that?

I get it from the fact that you started arguing with me without even bothering to read the articles I was quoting. You did read the quote, I guess, but if that's all you did (and that's what you say you did), then you knew nothing of the details nor of the context.

Are you going to argue this ad nauseam? If you want to advance your argument you are going to have to make a different argument.

I keep arguing this ad nauseam because you keep dismissing it. I thought that rephrasing it would make you agree with it, but I guess I was wrong. Or maybe you do understand it, but you don't share my outrage. If this is the case, could this be because, gee, maybe you are being partisan? You don't have to answer, it's rhetorical.

Your complaining about the rising of the tide.

You seem to find this perfectly acceptable. I don't!

And my point is that I don't know what the truth is and I'm not jumping to conclusions.

I'm not jumping top conclusions either. Check the links I provided below.

No, the Bush administration is practicing politics.

The Bush administration is both disregarding the science that doesn't fit their politics, and altering scientific analysis to make it fit with their politics. If this is politics, then no wonder so many have become cynical and disillusioned about politics and politicians.

No, it means that we live in the real world and we have to accept reality.

My point was that I don't make distinctions between what's right in a imperfect world or what's right in a perfect world in cases like this. It is wrong to mess with scientific results to make them fit a political agenda in any world.

So you claim.

I'm in good company.

This should back up some of my points:

The New Science Wars: Is George W. Bush's the most anti-science administration in modern times? (This article comes from the Skeptical Inquirer page)

For Bush, science is a dirty word

Panelists Decry Bush Science Policies

About Politics & Science
The State of Science Under the Bush Administration

Ranking Scientists Warn Bush Science Policy Lacks Integrity

And there are many more!

The Bush administration has an history of doing these kinds of things. This is just the latest "incident".

No, I'm saying that you are complaining about politicians doing what politicians do best. I don't excuse it or justify it.

Well, I don't like it when politicians, any politicians, do it, so I complain about it.

In fantasy land, yes, I agree with you. I wish all of our politicians were honest. I wish the media didn't get it so wrong so often.

What exactly are you trying to say? Should we find this kind of behaviour perfectly normal because, gosh darn it, politicians are liars and crooks? Maybe they lie and cheat because people let them get away with it.

Rrrriiiiight! Politicians are now Boy Scouts. Look, I don't mean to be cynical. It really is not my purpose here. I said from the very start that the document should not have been changed. The point is, is that I'm not getting all weak in the knees over the incident. Changing the document was wrong, lots of things are wrong. Perhaps the administration doesn't see eye to eye with your particular morality. I can't honestly say I'm too terribly concerned about it myself. If the science behind it was politically motivated and I don't know that it was then perhaps your route was not the one that would most likely yield success for Bush and the administration.

My morality isn't particular. It is unethical to alter someone's work against their will for political reasons. Hell, it is unethical for any reason! As far as I know, this is what happened here. The fact that some scientific studies are politically motivated doesn't make them wrong. If the conclusions are supported by solid arguments and good data, the political motivation is irrelevant. I will keep repeating this ad nauseam if you keep spinning this and minimising it.

So you claim.

Check the links I posted.

 

[Orwell]

It's midnight here, I am going to be now.

 

[RandFan]

I get it from the fact that you started arguing with me...

No, I made a statement and asked some questions. You are making unwarrented conclusions.

I keep arguing this ad nauseam because you keep dismissing it.

{sigh} It is STILL fallacy.

You seem to find this perfectly acceptable. I don't!

Duh! Heeelllloooooo..... Come on Orwell, you are entitled to an opinion as so am I.

I'm not jumping top conclusions either.

Not my point.

The Bush administration is both disregarding the science that doesn't fit their politics, and altering scientific analysis to make it fit with their politics.

That is your opinion.

My point was that I don't make distinctions between what's right in a imperfect world or what's right in a perfect world in cases like this. It is wrong to mess with scientific results to make them fit a political agenda in any world.

If you assume that the scientists were correct and not also so motivated.

"Here we go round in circles..."

The Bush administration has an history of doing these kinds of things. This is just the latest "incident".

Are you arguing by link again? These are opinion pieces. Do you buy any and everything so long as it fits your world view?

BTW, this reminds me of the articles my friends and families used to give me that "proved" Bill Clinton was a murderer (Vince Foster) sold national secrets to the Chinese, and a rapist. I don't believe everything I read, do you?

Well, I don't like it when politicians, any politicians, do it, so I complain about it.

{yawn} Yeah, we know your position, blah, blah, blah. But you keep stating it over and over and over as if it will eventually become true by simple virtue of debate.

What exactly are you trying to say? Should we find this kind of behaviour perfectly normal because, gosh darn it, politicians are liars and crooks? Maybe they lie and cheat because people let them get away with it.

Straw man. Your fallacy is begining to mount.

My morality isn't particular. It is unethical to alter someone's work against their will for political reasons.

Oh momy the bad man did a bad thing. Waaaahhhhh......

Grow up. For the last time I said it was wrong. We have been in agreement since my very first post. Do you even know what it is you are arguing here?

I will keep repeating this ad nauseam if you keep spinning this and minimising it.

Do you know what "ad nauseam" is? I posted the link. Why do you expect me to read your links and you not read mine?

Ad Nauseam is fallacy.

Check the links I posted.

Look up the following; fallacy, ad nauseam, straw man.

Orwell, NOTHING has changed from my first post. I STILL think it was wrong for the Bush administration to change the document and I STILL don't know what the truth is. I have explained plainly and clearly why I hold the position that I do. I respect your opinion. It is possible for reasonable people to disagree. Yet for some reason you refuse to accept that I could not agree with you. So you keep making the same statements over and over, TO WHAT END? My position is both reasoned and justified. Just because you don't like it does not make you correct.

But, keep engaging in fallacy, you seem to enjoy it so much. I will suffer it for I am just as much the fool.

RandFan

 

[SezMe]

Are you arguing by link again?

Can I dip my oar in the water here?

First, asking, "Are you arguing by link again?" suggests that providing links is an invalid method to bolster one's arguments. I don't think this is the case. Linking to other sources is widely used in both scientific and lay arenas to substantiate an argument. There is nothing wrong with it. We JREFers do it all the time.

These are opinion pieces.

Not so. One is surely an opinion piece. The rest are news articles. Take, for example, the link to the Skeptical site. It is well supported by links (oh, maybe you don't accept links at all) to other sites to provide evidence, that cherished commodity here.

Do you buy any and everything so long as it fits your world view?

Argument by exaggeration. If someone cites a link, that does not imply that they "buy any and everything" in that link. Yeah, they should be specific if there is any doubt, but you, OTH, cannot, IMO, assume that citing a link implies "everything" contained on that link is valid in the eyes of the "citer". For example, if I were to name every link that you cited, would you be prepared to back up every claim made therein?

 

[Megalodon]

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?

I'm sorry, but from where I stand it looks like you are twisting reality to make excuses for your administration. I'll simplify my argument

Disagreeing with science report = Neutral

(It happens all the time, and it's one of science greatest engines)

Not following it's recommendations = Neutral

(Politicians often do this due to, well, political reasons)

Changing it so that it seems to agree with you = Bad

(This seems to be a new trend. It's fraud, and a blatant attempt of having your cake and eating it too)

Wondering if it was the fault of the authors = Weird

(I still can't understand why would someone do this)

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.

No, I am not saying that, and I wonder where I implied it. The point is, if you alter a document, you will not know if the original was flawed or not. If you think the conclusions were politically motivated, then assume the dismissal of the work and get another one done.

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).

It is called a lot of things, RandFan... Skepticism is not one of them.

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".

Whatever... As I told you, this kind of reports is normally open (if through tortuous ways) for public scrutiny. But if you change the document, you cannot review the original at all.

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

Again, you are confusing things. Science can and should be questioned and reviewed. But not re-written for political purposes. If when that happens you start wondering wether the original document was politically skewed, I cannot but find it curious...

It's basically apologizing for revisionism and censorship. I can understand the mental process leading to that position, but it's a dangerous one.

Megalodon,

yes, dear?

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.

Yes. Good thing that no one is arguing that point. Nobody is saying that science is infallible or that it should always lead politics. What I'm saying is that it should not be tampered with.

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.

Sorry RandFan, but it seems to me that you already left your skepticism at the door in this one

Cheers

 

[Donks]

Just wondering, has someone bothered to read the draft and final study so far?

Draft.
Transcripts from Grazing Rule DEIS Public Meetings avalable.
Final Report Large file, available in sections at the Transcripts link.

From a quick browsing, yes the conclusions were changed. Are the new conclusions supported by the rest of the document? No idea.

 

[Ed]

Like Randfan, whils aspects of this episode are annoying I cannot get too upset.

I think that a point we have to bear in mind is that this is, decidedly, not science that we are talking about. Since we are talking about government, there is no opportunity for a back and forth and elaboration in scientific journals. The report was one step in the scientific process that was meant as input, I presume, to a policy decision. That being the case this might be described as "science lite" and there is nothing sacrosanct about it.

Orwell, is your position that a report (note "a") should define policy? Does that trump all other considerations?