Land Study on Grazing Denounced

[Rob Lister]

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

The only thing I find annoying is that a draft of roughly 175 [pdf] pages turned into a a final report of greater than 600 pages. They even had a full section on . . . nevermind, off topic.

I'm not annoyed at the change. Unlike Randfan, I am not yet convinced there was any wrong doing whatsoever. The people complaining (Campbell and an unknown) are former employees and not current employees. Their inputs were changed but so to was the person that sat at what was once their desk. Therefore, is it not just as likely, if not more likely, that the person responsible for the changes was 'the new guy'? Somebody had to do the new analysis of the dataset. What makes this person less correct than Campbell? As far as I can discern:

Both the original draft and the changes were made internal to to the BLF. Blaming the "Bush Adminstration" is technically correct but doesn't carry much weight unless you can 1) prove wrongdoing and 2) prove Bush intentionally instagated it. I'm picturing Bush pulling the SecInt aside and saying something to the effect, "You know that Cattle grazing thing? Make it happen."

The reported statement, "A bureau official acknowledged that changes were made in the analysis . . .," can be confirmed by actually reading the report. The changes in the original draft concerning wildlife were annotated in the resume of changes (pdf p206)

The reported statement by Campbell, "The bureau now concludes that the grazing regulations are 'beneficial to animals.' appears nowhere in the final document. It does make reference to 'beneficial to wildlife' but the statement is in context with qualifiers.

While Campbells specific language [regarding wildlife] was removed, it is impossible to conclude that such removal was not justified. The onus is on him to prove that. I certainly can't draw a conclusion one way or the other.

Nuff said.

 

[RandFan]

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

BS. I said it was wrong. Why is it that you can't accept that?

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

I have said it was wrong. From my very first post.

Wondering if it was the fault of the authors = Weird

Straw man. I'm saying that if the administration honestly believed the document politically motivated then I could understand how or why they would pull such a stunt. NOT that I agree with it. You are trying to make something out of something that isn't there.

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

You don't understand politics.

No, I am not saying that, and I wonder where I implied it.

Go back and read your posts.

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

The hell it isn't. Do you think Shermer is wrong? That we should accept at face value what any scientist says. THIS is weird. WHY do you say it is not skepticism?

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.

As I understand the data wasn't changed. The opinions or conclusions were altered.

Again, you are confusing things. Science can and should be questioned and reviewed. But not re-written for political purposes.

I said it was wrong. {sheesh}

If when that happens you start wondering whether the original document was politically skewed, I cannot but find it curious...

WHY? You keep arguing this without reason. You state that something is curious. You treat science as if it were sacrosanct and if anyone dare touch it then by god there must only be one conclusions. Fallacy.

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

No, it's called a possible explanation. Regardless, no explanation will change the fact that I think that it was wrong to change the document.

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.

Yes, you and I both agree, always have BTW, that it is a bad idea to change the document. However that they have is not proof of anything except that they changed the document for political purposes.

Why did they change the document? Did they disagree with it? Did they find it politically expedient?

You are committing fallacy. You are suggesting that there is but one conclusion that can possibly come from the fact that they altered the document. I don't agree with that premise.

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

Sorry Megladon, it seems as if you never had it in the first place.

 

[RandFan]

Can I dip my oar in the water here?

Please anytime.

First, asking, "Are you arguing by link again?" suggests that providing links is an invalid method to bolster one's arguments.

Of course not. I do it all of the time. I don't care much for folks who drive-by link. What are the pertinent points or arguments of the link? Prove to me that you have read it before I have to read ALL of that text. Make an argument so we can focus on that part that you think is important. This is what I ask for and this is what I expect. It's a free world so do what ever you want but don't expect me to take you serious if the best you can do is post a link or two.

 

[Orwell]

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?

I never said that a report should absolutely define policy. A report should inform policy. Here's, in a nutshell, my position, once again:

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!

The issue I have is that the administration seems to have altered a scientific analysis to make this analysis fit their political objectives. They want the government scientists to back their point of view, even if the government scientists don't. In other words, they want their cake and they want to eat it too; they want to have the legitimacy that science provides, scientific opinion be damned! I am inclined to believe the scientist's allegations in this case simply because I know that the administration has repeatedly done this before (hence the links to prove it). I've been pretty damn consistent since the beginning, and I can't find any logical problems with my position.

Randfan, I think I'm unable to follow your position on this. Could you please summarise it?

 

[Ed]

I never said that a report should define policy. Here's, in a nutshell, my position, once again:

OK.

I don't think that it is incumbant upon a government to justify all that they do, whether with regard to science or politics. And they are indeed held accountable, we have elections.

n.b. GW is pretty much sinking his party in the '06 elections. Anyone in a wagering mood?

 

[Orwell]

OK.

I don't think that it is incumbant upon a government to justify all that they do, whether with regard to science or politics. And they are indeed held accountable, we have elections.

n.b. GW is pretty much sinking his party in the '06 elections. Anyone in a wagering mood?

Yes, but it is also necessary, I think, to say it when we think that politicians are being unethical weasels. And this is unethical weaselling in the grandest scale!

 

[RandFan]

OK.

I don't think that it is incumbant upon a government to justify all that they do, whether with regard to science or politics. And they are indeed held accountable, we have elections.

n.b. GW is pretty much sinking his party in the '06 elections. Anyone in a wagering mood?

Not on your life. I predicted that GWB would fail at the last election. I was wrong. I underestimated the Citizens willingness to give GWB the benifit of the doubt. I have little doubt however that the Republicans will loose big time in '06. The country will be tired of current affairs and will be looking for a change.

 

[Orwell]

When it comes to this administration attitude towards science, there have now been too many complaints and reports of abuses to give them the benefit of the doubt. Normally, I give the benefit of the doubt if someone makes one or two apparent "errors". I stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when the same "mistake" happens again and again.

 

[Rob Lister]

When it comes to this administration attitude towards science, there have now been too many complaints and reports of abuses to give them the benefit of the doubt. Normally, I give the benefit of the doubt if someone makes one or two apparent "errors". I stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when the same "mistake" is constantly repeated.

I'm getting the idea that my research and analysis into the actual report and draft are either being ignored or completely discounted.

Well, I didn't read all of either, so that's fine. I did read ALL of the applicable sections however. Have any of you?

 

[Orwell]

I'm getting the idea that my research and analysis into the actual report and draft are either being ignored or completely discounted.

Well, I didn't read all of either, so that's fine. I did read ALL of the applicable sections however. Have any of you?

I'm going through it too, and I'm not getting the same picture you are. This will take time...

 

[Rob Lister]

I'm going through it too, and I'm not getting the same picture you are. This will take time...

Hey, no doubt. Please do not neglect the extensive discussion on the socialogical impact that calving has on highschool football teams. If I managed to wade through it, so should you. Misery loves company.

 

[RandFan]

When it comes to this administration attitude towards science, there have now been too many complaints and reports of abuses to give them the benefit of the doubt. Normally, I give the benefit of the doubt if someone makes one or two apparent "errors". I stop giving them the benefit of the doubt when the same "mistake" happens again and again.

Yes, but how do you coun't the hits and misses? Do you assume every complaint is legitimate? Your methodology seems specious to me. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire. Based on this logic alone we should conclude that UFO abductions are real.

 

[CapelDodger]

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

I'm not sure data is peer-reviewed. Peer review generally applies to methods and conclusions. If the conclusions are excised, peer review is impossible. However, thanks to Donks we now know we can see the draft, so it seems its conclusions could be peer reviewed, if only informally.

 

[CapelDodger]

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.

Those of us fortunate enough to have been brought up on black-and-white Westerns know that there are cattle-barons, generally bad guys or Barbara Stanwyck, and then there are sodbusters, generally salt-of-the-earth and life-blood of the gingham industry. Lumping both into "agriculture" loses the fine-grain detail. Agribusiness is big business, whereas the small farmer is more the Democrat thing.

eta : for "small farmer" read "hard-working American farming families, bless 'em", and for "agribusiness" read "bastards".

 

[CapelDodger]

OK.

I don't think that it is incumbant upon a government to justify all that they do, whether with regard to science or politics.

Not even in a democracy?

And they are indeed held accountable, we have elections.

Which are only really meaningful if people have information on which to make their choice. In this case, if the ranges dry-up and blow away, well, here's a "scientific" report that says it won't happen (we know it doesn't say that, even in its final form, but all's fair in politics) so blame the scientists. Not that the general subject of manipulation of science is likely to be a big issue for an electorate that doesn't dismiss Creationism in schools out-of-hand.

n.b. GW is pretty much sinking his party in the '06 elections. Anyone in a wagering mood?

Jeb in 2012. Want some of that action?

 

[RandFan]

I'm not sure data is peer-reviewed. Peer review generally applies to methods and conclusions. If the conclusions are excised, peer review is impossible. However, thanks to Donks we now know we can see the draft, so it seems its conclusions could be peer reviewed, if only informally.

You are correct. Thank you. I was sloppy in asking my question. As one who designs databases for the collection of data for scientific study I am somewhat familiar with the differences between data, methodologies and conclusions. I say somewhat because I have never designed protocols but have only designed the databases based on the criteria set by my client.

My question was in regards to the data and methodologies. If Bush and Co. have altered the conclusions then those conclusions could be reviewed based on the data if we understood the protocols and methodology.

 

[RandFan]

Randfan, I think I'm unable to follow your position on this. Could you please summarize it?

I can't possibly understand how. I couldn't be anymore clear. {sigh}

1. The administration altered the conclusions of a document.
   
2. The document painted a negative picture as to the impact of grazing cattle on public land.
   
3. The changes made the document appear to give a positive view of such an impact.
   
4. I don't think that they should have done this.
   
5. I don't think the action proves any sinister intent on the part of the administration.
   
6. The administration could disagree with the conclusions and have serious questions as to the motives or methodologies of those who prepared the report. (I can't read their minds and I don't know everything that happened).
   
7. The administration could have elected to alter the document for political expediency. [/list=1]
   Is there something about this that you don't understand?
   
   Now could you answer my questions?
   
   

   RandFan
   Yes, but how do you coun't the hits and misses? Do you assume every complaint is legitimate? Your methodology seems specious to me. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire. Based on this logic alone we should conclude that UFO abductions are real.

 

[CapelDodger]

My question was in regards to the data and methodologies. If Bush and Co. have altered the conclusions then those conclusions could be reviewed based on the data if we understood the protocols and methodology.

I think the problem is not that this report was altered by order of the White House but that there is a general atmosphere emanating from the White House which encourages this sort of thing. By which I mean commercial interests being taken into account in purely scientific questions. There's an article (easily dismissed as partisan) that bears on it in SciAm : Doubt Is Their Product . A scientific publication carrying an essentially political article ... where will it all end? But that does show how much the scientific community is stirred up about this issue, more now than ever before, I think.

 

[RandFan]

I think the problem is not that this report was altered by order of the White House but that there is a general atmosphere emanating from the White House which encourages this sort of thing. By which I mean commercial interests being taken into account in purely scientific questions. There's an article (easily dismissed as partisan) that bears on it in SciAm : Doubt Is Their Product . A scientific publication carrying an essentially political article ... where will it all end? But that does show how much the scientific community is stirred up about this issue, more now than ever before, I think.

Interesting tease. Sadly I'm not a subscriber.

 

[Orwell]

Yes, but how do you coun't the hits and misses? Do you assume every complaint is legitimate? Your methodology seems specious to me. In other words, you seem to be suggesting that where there is smoke there is fire. Based on this logic alone we should conclude that UFO abductions are real.

Of course I don't count the hits and misses! I don't have that kind of time!

But I listen to the scientists, I read the newspapers and a couple of science mags, I have an idea of what the Bush administration position is on a variety of scientific subjects is. I suggest you at least read the csicop article I provided.

http://www.csicop.org/doubtandabout/sciencewars/

A few quotes:

When a leading psychologist like Harvard's Howard Gardner calls the president's science adviser a "prostitute," it's a safe bet that all is not well in the realm of government science policy. Indeed, in the past month, the United States has been engulfed by a kind of "science war," one pitting much of the nation's scientific community against the current administration. Led by twenty Nobel laureates, the scientists say Bush's government has systematically distorted and undermined scientific information in pursuit of political objectives. Examples include the suppression and censorship of reports on subjects like climate change and mercury pollution, the stacking of scientific advisory panels, and the suspicious removal of scientific information from government Web sites.

The Bush administration justifies environmental policies by misusing and misrepresenting science. The administration's harmful positions on climate change, pollution, forest management, and resource extraction ignore widely accepted scientific evidence. When the administration invokes science, it relies on research at odds with the scientific consensus, and contradicts, undermines, or suppresses the research of its own scientists. Furthermore, the administration cloaks environmentally damaging policies under misleading program names like "clear skies" and "healthy forests." As a result, the public and the media often wrongly believe that this administration uses sound science to help promote a healthy environment. In reality, the best available science indicates that President Bush's policies will cause and exacerbate damage to the natural systems on which we all depend.

From here: http://www.oneworld.net/article/view/79763/1/

More than 60 of the nation's top scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, leading medical experts, and former federal agency directors, as well as university chairs and presidents, issued a statement Wednesday calling for regulatory and legislative action to "restore scientific integrity to federal policymaking."

They say President George W. Bush has suppressed and distorted scientific analysis from federal agencies, subjected government scientists to "censorship and political oversight," and taken actions that have undermined the quality of scientific advisory panels.