Was that a chill I just saw run over all my science books?
From the New York Times today (free registration required, and emphasis mine):
In an executive order published last week in the Federal Register, Mr. Bush said that each agency must have a regulatory policy office run by a political appointee, to supervise the development of rules and documents providing guidance to regulated industries. The White House will thus have a gatekeeper in each agency to analyze the costs and the benefits of new rules and to make sure the agencies carry out the president’s priorities.
This strengthens the hand of the White House in shaping rules that have, in the past, often been generated by civil servants and scientific experts.
Yeah, this makes me feel better. That’s worked so well for science in the past. It goes on:
The White House said the executive order was not meant to rein in any one agency. But business executives and consumer advocates said the administration was particularly concerned about rules and guidance issued by the Environmental Protection Agency and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration.
[...]
Besides placing political appointees in charge of rule making, Mr. Bush said agencies must give the White House an opportunity to review "any significant guidance documents" before they are issued.
I’m shocked. Shocked.
One thing scientists do is analyze patterns, and this one is pretty clear. No good will come of this, and much ill certainly will. Expect James Hansen’s head to explode any minute now.
January 29th, 2007 at 11:46 pm
Smells like Soviet Spirit!
January 29th, 2007 at 11:47 pm
I grew up in a communist Eastern European country, and never would have thought that after moving to the USA I will see this (political appointments everywhere, the government giving “guidance” to scientists) all over again. It’s a sad day in my adoptive country, especially since the vast majority of the population doesn’t know or doesn’t care that this is going on.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:31 am
As someone who grew up in the GDR – Congratulations! You’re government’s more meddling in your lives than ours in it’s evil socialistic phase ever did. Your spying network (onto your own people) is better than the GDR’s ever was (although here you can blame the the better technology), you can make people vanish if someone cries terrorist (back in the GDR the battle cry was, oy, “state disturbing individual” ? tough to translate) and the scientists and other people saying things the president doesn’t like are more and more silenced.
Right now, the main difference is, that you don’t have free healthcare and the gurantee that you get a job (as long as you don’t annoy the government.) Well, and the fact that you don’t have to expect an economical collapse anytime soon.
Seriously, all bleak predictions aside, it really seems that you guys are in deep trouble in the moment. Go and whack your government as long as you can – the ability to do so can go away really quickly.
Do you think it gets better after next election?
Seriously, I hope so. I remember a time where the USA was the land of the free dreams, a bright example of what could be archived with honest struggle, and not a place that everyone looked at worried, wondering if they’re the next in line to be called evil.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:53 am
Yep, communism has arrived in the USA. Who would have thought that they’d grab power by masquerading as republicans…
Just keep counting down to 2008. Things can only get better.
On a lighter note, Phil, why did you forget to mention to us for so long that you are in fact the owner of 11 (count ‘m) finger nails?
January 30th, 2007 at 1:06 am
Any new OSHA protection for workers died 6 years ago.
The tuberculosis exposure control protection for health care workers was in the final rule stage when Bush and the Republican controlled Congress took office on 2000. They de-funded any further action on the measure and according to my contact at OSHA, that was the silent way to stop the legislation without drawing attention to themselves. The final rule was never passed.
When the Occupational Safety and Health Act was first passed in 1974 and the agency initiated, health care worker protection for exposure to deadly infectious diseases was ignored as a worker safety law. In 1991 the blood borne pathogens exposure control standard was passed. It was the first time OSHA even used the term bio-hazards in a law and the first worker safety law ever passed protecting workers from exposure to any infectious disease. While HIV-AIDS was the spark that initiated the law, 200 health care workers had been dying every year from hepatitis B which they were infected with from blood exposures on the job.
In every industry except health care, if workers are exposed to a known airborne hazard, the law requires the employer provide NIOSH approved respiratory protection from the hazard. In health care, we have been given loose fitting paper masks to wear when caring for patients with deadly airborne diseases. Those masks were only designed to protect the patient from germs the health care worker might breathe onto a surgical wound, and were never tested for protecting the worker, were never designed to protect the worker and in fact, did not protect the worker. In the 70s 29 health care workers died of Lassa fever which one person returning from Africa was ill with. The masks were useless against Lassa fever.
After the blood borne pathogens worker safety legislation, a law was drafted requiring the masks health care workers were given for protection from tuberculosis, one of the world’s deadliest infectious diseases in terms of numbers killed, actually be NIOSH approved for effective protection. That was the law Bush and the Republican controlled Congress essentially stopped from being enacted.
SARS killed over 200 health care workers including several in Toronto. Again, health care workers were expected to care for patients with respiratory masks that were not designed to, and indeed did not protect them from airborne infections. Had the US seen many SARS patients we would have also had nurses, doctors and other health care worker deaths. Nothing has changed since.
The plan for respiratory protection from pandemic flu when it happens is to use respiratory masks that can filter out bacteria and larger droplets one might cough into one’s face, but viruses are smaller than the filter holes and can be expected to pass right through. There will be no OSHA law requiring anything different. Hospitals have already shown their reluctance to provide adequate protection not mandated by law. They have a history of not protecting workers as well as they could have for the last 100 years.
Currently on the CDC’s website is an official recommendation for pandemic flu masks that only protect against droplet spread infections. There is conflicting data from the research indicating flu is sometimes droplet spread but sometimes airborne which the masks will not protect from. I have seen the data in the research literature. But when it came time to write the infection control recommendations, the evidence flu was airborne was not mentioned in the CDC recommendation or was glossed over when it was mentioned.
It’s the politics, stupid. What makes you think it’s the science. Hospital lobbies are more persuasive with the Republicans than Labor lobbies are. If it cost more than employers are willing to pay to protect workers, all you have to do is direct the CDC’s scientific findings to meet your needs.
January 30th, 2007 at 1:22 am
Not being an American, I may have missed something but it would appear that this president has chosen to forget something that another president said – “government of the people, by the people, for the people” not government of ONE person, by ONE person, for ONE person which is what it appears that George W. wants if these agencies are to carry out his priorities. That sounds more like dictatorship to me.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:04 am
When reading the Declaration of Independence nowadays one begins to see parallels between some of the actions of King George with those of George Bush! These are troubled times for America.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:08 am
Apparently General Secretary Georg Busky as trying to consolidate his power.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:25 am
Government agencies should be accountable, and as the elected politicians are ultimately accountable to the electorate who vote them in, why should not agencies have political appointiees to keep them in line.
In the UK we have politically appointed ministers to oversee departments and associated agencies and the situation works. In the past some some departments wanted to pursue their own agenda and had to be reigned in by the politicians to make sure that the policy of the elected goverment is pursued.
These agencies are paid for by public money, to carry out the policy of the elected government. Remeber “Do not bite the hand that feeds you”
January 30th, 2007 at 3:27 am
Bush …bad
Waxman…good
Regulations from bureaucracy…good
Regulations from Bush Whitehouse…bad
grrr. grrrr.
“Under the new White House policy, any guidance document expected to have an economic effect of $100 million a year or more must be posted on the Internet, and agencies must invite public comment, except in emergencies in which the White House grants an exemption.”
God forbid, the people whoes job it is to tell others how to do theirs would ever have to justify theirs.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:58 am
All hail King George the First of America!…. Unbelievable, George Orwell was right…
But considering the past six years of Bush’s precidency one should have seen it coming from miles away. I only hope the same thing won’t happen in Europe but it will require a lot of vigilance to stop it.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:13 am
“Right now, the main difference is, that you don’t have free healthcare and the gurantee that you get a job (as long as you don’t annoy the government.)”
Don’t worry the Democrats will handle that for us soon enough…
And as for Europe…soon enough you may be learning Islamic science and Islamic math. Let us all know how that vigilence works out.
For all the locals, if this upsets you so, I suppose you’ll be writing to your congressmen and women? And to the president himself? Or is a blog entry good enough to assuage your conscious? After all, NOW you can say you did something about the problem, right?
January 30th, 2007 at 4:18 am
Gerrsun it is a matter of history that for a period the Islamic world were leaders in mathematical and scientific thought. Please refrain from making comments like you did as they border on racism
January 30th, 2007 at 4:29 am
Well, you can now get arrested without being charged, kept in prison without trial for years, be tortured, have your emails read, your phone tapped… Yay, freedom and democracy. I think it is actually amazing we are still surprised by things like this.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:55 am
Before everyone gets all crazy, have any of you actually read the published executive order? Probably not. Just like the Grand Canyon book or the National Science Teachers Assoication/Al Gore movie fiasco.
Here’s the lastest executive order
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070124-2.html
January 30th, 2007 at 4:56 am
I am aware of the contributions of the Islamic world to the scientific community in the past. If you would like to enlighten me on any current contributions to science by Muslims, I will be happy to listen. Honestly.
And no, I won’t refrain from making such comments as you misunderstand the term racism. dictionary.com. Look it up. I did. Here it is.
racism
–noun 1. a belief or doctrine that inherent differences among the various human races determine cultural or individual achievement, usually involving the idea that one’s own race is superior and has the right to rule others.
2. a policy, system of government, etc., based upon or fostering such a doctrine; discrimination.
3. hatred or intolerance of another race or other races.
Neither 1, nor 2 or 3 was fulfilled in my statements. Or is there another definition I shoudl use?
Just because you don’t like it, doesn’t make it racist.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:05 am
So is section 6 and 7 the big hullabaloo?
January 30th, 2007 at 5:28 am
jrkeller
Thank you for the link.
After reading what appears to be in an effect an order to get the federal government to use less energy and to comply with the rules they write for everyone else, the administration is puting another layer of bureaucrats to watch the ones below. Just more government inefficency.
Evil? Doubt it.
I’m shocked the NY Times would run a slightly different slant to it.
Does anyone on this blog have any problem with the new congress having oversite hearings on the administrations actions? Now, how many are having the vapors over this?
January 30th, 2007 at 5:31 am
Abdus Salam…won the nobel prize in physics. I didnt see any one specific big accomplishment, just a general body of work in physics. This as per the nobel prize webpage.
Here’s another….
Dr. Ahmed H. Zewail has won the 1999 Nobel Prize in chemistry for his groundbreaking work in viewing and studying chemical reactions at the atomic level as they occur. The announcement was made today by the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences.
They exist, I found several others.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:41 am
Thanks for the link jrkeller
January 30th, 2007 at 5:58 am
Only two more years. Let us be thankful for that.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:20 am
Actually, less than that. Once the election happens in November 2008, the only thing the president does is pardon a few people and turn off the lights
January 30th, 2007 at 6:23 am
I didn’t much like Gerrsun’s post either – until I read it several times – he’s right. And he even had the curtesy to modify his earlier statements afterwords.
What really cheeses me is that nearly everyone here – myself included – will be outraged by this – and sit on our hands and kvetch here and maybe one or two other places – and nearly nothing else. That is sad.
KGB (Hey – even that works!! King George Bush – KGB – I really like it!) has done one identifiable, positive thing – he has gotten me into the voting booth after 31 years of “refusing to participate”. It is a start – but in this case, it isn’t enough.
JC
January 30th, 2007 at 6:26 am
Gerrsun, I think it’s a racist fantasy to be entertaining thoughts of Islam over-running Europe anytime in the next century. What, you think that just because we share a continent we’re going to sell out to the extreme Islamicists? More likely that Mexico and Canada will join forces to invade the USA.
January 30th, 2007 at 6:51 am
From “outside” (Germany) I wish you all the best with the next election of the president in 2008!!
January 30th, 2007 at 6:57 am
Hey, let’s look on the bright side. Maybe it’ll be like “Babylon 5″, and a hot blonde zampolit will be sent out to every scientist to show him the advantages of coöperating.
“Captain, I think you’re about to go where everyone has gone before.”
January 30th, 2007 at 7:08 am
Again this word ‘racist’, I don’t think you guys even read the definition. I provided.
Do I think YOU will sell out, no. But I don’t think the extremists in the Islamic faith think you’ll sell out either, but they will be more than happy to force your government to their will AND given the appearant tiny voice of opposition from moderates in the Muslim faith, they don’t have much in the way of opposition. And given birth rates for non-muslims is dwarfed by birth rates of Muslims in Europe AND immigration to Europe from Muslim country’s does not necessarily include assimilation or even acceptance of the host nations ideology…
And just to define myself, my ‘race’ is human. My cultural background in Southerm White Anglo-Saxon Protestant, however, I have hung around anthropologists too long to see that race is not a real determinant of ability or intelligence. Any child put in any cultural situation will grow up in that culture’s framework, irregardless of his ‘race’ with mental and physical abilities that will match the genetic factor available to them and the cultural stresses that utilize them.
These biological factors don’t constitute a ‘race’ but are most likely to have been selected for in a group or ‘culture’ of people.
So please stop using the word ‘racist’ unless it really applies.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:11 am
As for our next election, please note, that there is only ONE political party in the US. They play good cop, bad cop interchangeably but in reality, they only want one thing, continued control.
So ‘Boo’ GWB and ‘Cheer’ HRC if she wins but it won’t mean much.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:27 am
I have been saying for 6 years that there is NOTHING the Bush apologists will object to from this man. I was right.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:42 am
Sorry, maybe I should have used the term Islamaphobia.
I am on friendly terms with a decent Muslim guy, who runs the local chippy. At my request he started selling egg fried rice, which for me he makes spicy.
Why can’t we all just get along
January 30th, 2007 at 7:43 am
While I don’t approve of this act, there is one long term benefit that it will bring.
It’s going to drive scientists away from government employment sectors.
More scientists working in the less regulated private market will benefit all of us, and won’t the white house be suprised when I finds that all their brain-boys have left them in the dark.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:01 am
“won’t the white house be suprised when I finds that all their brain-boys have left them in the dark.”
You think they’ll notice?!
January 30th, 2007 at 8:04 am
jrkeller, I think you are mistaken. The Executive Order in question is 12866.
Executive Order 12866 of September 30, 1993, as amended by E.O. 13258 of February 26, 2002 and E.O. 13422 of January 18, 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/eo12866/eo12866_amended_01-2007.pdf
The text of E) 13422 of Jan. 18, 2007, is found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html
On a different note, I also saw this while poking around.
Religious Freedom Day 2007
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070111-2.html
January 30th, 2007 at 8:11 am
More likely that Mexico and Canada will join forces to invade the USA.
What makes you think we’d want it? We have enough yahoos of our own without taking over the US, although I admit a certain humour value in taking over the US, legalizing marijuana and changing the official language to French just to see Dick Cheney’s head explode.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:13 am
NelC said:
> Gerrsun, I think it’s a racist fantasy to be entertaining thoughts of Islam over-running Europe anytime in the next century. What, you think that just because we share a continent we’re going to sell out to the extreme Islamicists? More likely that Mexico and Canada will join forces to invade the USA.
It’s not about military conquest. That’s so Middle Ages. It’s about immigration, birth rate, and becoming the majority of the population. Muslims are immigrating to European countries, but not assimilating to the local culture, trying to preserve their Islamic heritage and independence. That would be fine, but their actions include fighting the freedoms that exist in those countries – freedom of expression, freedom of conscience, freedom of religion. They are using rhetorical tricks to make any criticism of Islam seem racist. You’re falling for their trap. They want critical evaluation of Islam to be unacceptable.
It’s a simple matter that they are maintaining higher birth rates than the existing populations, who are often experiencing negative growth rates. Combine a high immigration rate with high birth rates and the Islamic population is growing while the non-Islamic population is decreasing. What happens when the Islamic population outnumbers the non-Islamic, and they take their voting power to the polls and turn democracy in their favor?
January 30th, 2007 at 8:22 am
That’s great Sticks. I knew a Muslim guy who was rude to most folks, whiny, and was psychologically tortured because he wasn’t ‘devout’ enough. His brothers in faith came over and castigated him because his roommate who wasn’t muslim had a beer in the fridge. I understand the proscription against alcohol in the Islamic faith but to force him to kick his friend out because he had a beer? Tolerant. :\
He also surfed the web trying to pick up women, muslim or not. So I get that he was really conflicted about his beliefs.
As for a phobia, it needs to be an irrational fear, to be a phobia. Fear of muslims? No.
Fear of an extreme ideology that promotes death and the killing of others to a rite of passage, Absolutely.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:25 am
What? The government putting oversight controls when its money is being spent? Oh the horror! If you don’t want the oversight control, don’t go to the government to fund your program. There are some things that only a large entity like the U.S. Government has the ability to do, but it should be kept to that minimum. Max is right, but scientists and artists will continue to suck on the government teat to fund work that would not be supported by the public sector and its own merits. I’ve often said it’s amazing how much good work NASA does despite the politcs, but politcs will always be there, whether from the left or right. This is no apology for the current administration, as the next will do the same. But, since it may be more agreeable to some, they won’t complain. Don’t let partisanship define your rationality.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:30 am
Sticks:
It ain’t a phobia if they really are causing danger.
Your decent Muslim shop-owner keeps his mouth shut in mosque while the lunatics demand jihad and run the show … he wants to continue living.
We can get along with Islam once it gets its head out of the seventh century. Until then, they are acting like insane violent religious bigots … reasonable Moslems do not get to make policy in Dar Al Islam. Try traveling to a country that practices shairia, and publically proclaim yourself to be an atheist. See what happens. Be aware that they want that to happen here as well, and consider it a religious duty to try to implement it once they achieve at least 20% of the electorate.
Not good neighbors. I’ll re-evaluate my opinion of them once they go through their own enlightenment.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:35 am
Also, I think my original blog post waaaay off-topic. So I won’t post about it any more, will answer emails.
I will say I read the executive order and it sounds like the president wants someone in the EPA to keep him abreast of what gets funded and to offer the opinion of the president to the EPA.
It didn’t sound like this role had power to control what got funded or didn’t.
Am I missing something or did Section 6 define the roles and they just talked about advisement and a report every two years to the pres.
Could this not be a good thing where there is increased communication between the POTUS and the EPA?
Also, I’ve never understood how politicians think, I would never make rules based on a short term gain, since you may not be in power in 4 years. Would you want the opposition to have the opportunity to abuse the rules you set in place? It’s why I stand by my position there is only ONE political party in Washington and they play good cop, bad cop with the American government.
YEs, its a woowoo claim.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:39 am
Evolving Squid: I doubt Dicks head COULD explode. For that to happen you have to be alive in the first place. Was wondering about his biological state after watching a session of the Colbert Report, wherein the number of eye blinks of Nancy Pelosi vs Dick showed quite clearly that DICK IS DEAD and I don’t mean at all in the Grateful sense.
Robert Heinlien was one of the most sardonic observers of the American/human condition. One of his novels refers to the formation of a religious state and an attendent sequestering of all the nations rabble rousers(read, you,me and et al, Phil) in Coventry in Utah.
I wonder if Coventry comes just after George Bush declares a State of Emergency, martial law and the suspension of civil liberties and the constitution?
Oh, wait, constitution already crapped on.
Dang, maybe I should be buying land in Utah,,,
Gary 7
January 30th, 2007 at 8:43 am
Nice link to the wrong executive order. This appears to be the one in question:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html
Sections 5 and 9 are the ones that create a new position (or more likely add a function to an existing political position) and add a hoop for agencies to jump through before issuing policy guidance.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:45 am
I’m pretty sure the referenced NYT article is talking about a different executive order. I’ve read and reread the order (thanks for the link jrkeller), and see nothing in there about “regulating industry” or interfering with science. It seems to me that more people would be hooting about a President who downplays global warming mandating that his agencies “reduce greenhouse gas emissions of the agency”.
I believe this is the EO the NYT was referring to:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html
It is a modification of an EO that Clinton put into place in 1993. You’ll need to put together a copy of the original EO plus this current modification to read it correctly.
January 30th, 2007 at 8:51 am
jrkeller posted the wrong executive order. The correct one can be found here:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2007/01/20070118.html
The original executive order can be seen here:
http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
It basically says that any agency must submit to the Bush administration for review any document released by any agency that could possibly have even the slightest negative effect on anything. Also, it requires all documents released by any agency must conform with the president’s “priorities”. It also gives the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OIRA) the authority to enforce this and make decisions on where it applies.
Basically it take any rule set forth for actual enforceable decisions and extends them to pretty much any document of any kind.
They use the term “Guidance Document”
Note that “an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue” would apply to just about everything.
They also use the term “Significant guidance document”
Note the “or”. The $100 million is probably reasonable, but the second part is so general it basically says anything that has any chance of causing any “adverse affect” to anyone or anything anywhere in the U.S.. You would be hard-pressed to find a document released by any agency that has no chance of having any impact on anyone in the country.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:16 am
Aieee. You make me read MORE politiceeze. Damn you.
Ugh what are formal rule making procedures? 5 U.S.C. 556 and 557. It looks like a 60 day roadblock thrown up to any agency to get a significant guidance document if it falls into one of several categories. If the OIMB doesnt respond in 60 days, the agency can go through these procedures to get the document put out anyways…
Is that correct?
January 30th, 2007 at 9:17 am
Thanks for the updating link. According to the NYT, the EO came out last week so I picked the EO from last week.
Guess that’s what I get for trusting the liberal media. (that’s a joke)
January 30th, 2007 at 9:20 am
Here’s the original Clinton EO.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/eo/eo12866.htm
January 30th, 2007 at 9:31 am
Nice reading Rob, DennyMo and jrkeller. Never looked through an executive order before, so this was something new.
With respect to the EO that jrkeller linked to, there’s still the reference to an “Federal Environmental Executive” who is appointed by the president, and who will, “chair, convene and preside at meetings of, determine the agenda of, and direct the work of, the Steering Committee (on Strengthening Federal Environmental, Energy, and Transportation Management) {section 4.a}”.
So, regardless of which EO is the one that the focus of the original post, both apparently insert a political appointee with broad responsibility over each agency’s agenda. Don’t know if that’s normal or not, but this administration certainly has a sad track record with respect to the politicization of science.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:50 am
While it is true that Muslims made great contributions to science and mathematics in the past, ever since the teachings of Abu Hamid Muhammad ibn Muhammad al-GhazÄlÄ« (1058-1111) became the dominant philosophy among the Sunni, Science and Religion in the Islamic world have been at war in a way that we in the West can scarcely imagine. At the very worst, modern US fundamentalists think that, say, Evolution is wicked and factually incorrect. But the standard belief in Islam is that Science, /per/ /se/ is both impossible and wrong, because it rests on the premise that God follows rules that humans can understand. Indeed, al-GhazÄlÄ« condemned /all/ philosophy of any sort, from Socrates on down.
Less than two centuries later, Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), by his herculean labors to reconcile Roman Catholicism and Aristotle, committed the West to the opposite view. (Do not let Aristotle’s famous blunders mislead you; no matter how many mistakes he made, he /was/ a great scientist.)
There are, of course, present-day Muslims who do real science. But in terms of Islamic fundamentalism, they’re heretics for so doing.
January 30th, 2007 at 10:24 am
wait..that a government agency gets more oversight…that brings a chill???
January 30th, 2007 at 10:47 am
The thought of reading a second government/legal document in one day is enough to make me wince. The upside though, is that I will never fear insomnia again.
Todd, the chill was when Phil’s elbow hit the thermostat.
January 30th, 2007 at 12:49 pm
My take on the Environmental EO is that the Bush administration isn’t satisfied with the progress that federal agencies are making on their environmental initiatives, so he’s creating a watchdog position to ride herd on them.
As for BA’s original posting, I haven’t stitched together the original document and all its updates/addendums/etc. to figure out what it really says yet. FWIW, “my opinion” is that this EO is intended to tell the agencies, “Before you make a new rule/guideline/standard, you better demonstrate that you’ve tried to consider and mitigate the effects of The Law of Unintended Consequences.” That’s the only law in this land that is totally incorruptible…
January 30th, 2007 at 1:27 pm
UCS just released another report showing the Bush administration’s interference in science. This one is about climate change, but they have done similar analysis in other areas. You can see it here:
http://www.ucsusa.org/news/press_release/investigation-reveals-0007.html
As for this EO, the original EO already had provisions that tried to guarantee that they would “consider and mitigate the effects of The Law of Unintended Consequences” for new rules. The amendments do not change that, in fact the amendments specifically say they are not dealing with “regulatory actions” (see the definition of “Guidance Document” I posted above). What it does is expand this oversight so it includes pretty much any document, as near as I can tell including pure scientific assessments as well since they are, by definition, “an interpretation of a statutory or regulatory issue”.
Pretty much anything released by any agency must be approved by the Bush administration and cannot conflict with the President’s position on any issue. The problem is that these documents are meant to help advise the President on his positions and revise them if necessary, and to tell the public what the situation is so they can determine whether the President’s position agrees with the reality of the situation. This would prevent the public from determining whether the President’s position is valid because nothing that disagrees with his position could be released to begin with. That is really serious, how are we going to make decision on which side is right if only information that supports one side is allowed?
And they certainly do not improve progress, adding more layers of bureaucracy and more red tape before anything can get done.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
Jim,
Snap out of it. There already IS fiscal oversight of funded agencies. This executive order puts political appointees in to “approve” of reports, whether they have any experience in what they’re approving or not.
It’s a waste of government money to put in more Bush appointees like “Heckuva Job, Brownie” (you remember the head of FEMA who had little experience and then screwed up the Katrina recovery efforts royally?) who don’t have experience or knowledge. Who’s going to oversee THOSE political-appointee trough-suckers?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:23 pm
Again though it looks like its only for 60 days? While the Admin requests further consultation…. or sits it on a self. After that the EPA can follow normal procedures to put something out?
Or did I misunderstand soemthing…
January 30th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
Before we get carried away, remember that there are three branches of our federal government. The one is question is the Executive Branch, so named because it is run by POTUS, subject to the balancing by Congress and the Judicial Branch. The idea of electing a President is to have the Executive Branch do the things he promised to do in the election (the idea, not necessarily the practice). With the exception of some independent agencies (the Federal Reserve, for example), the idea is NOT to create the bureaucracy and turn it loose. Lord Acton and Thomas Jefferson probably have some good quotes on that. This is true even if you don’t like what that agency is doing; your option is elect a new executive so he or she can run the bureaucracy the way you want it run.
January 30th, 2007 at 3:35 pm
I feel Lysenko’s ghost in the room. What’s next, State Political Officers appointed to have final approval of what is and what is not science according to the official stance of the Party?
January 30th, 2007 at 3:57 pm
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/?GT1=8921
“Lawmakers received survey results of federal scientists that showed 46 percent felt pressure to eliminate the words “climate change,†“global warming†or similar terms from communications about their work.
The scientists also reported 435 instances of political interference in their work over the past five years.”
January 30th, 2007 at 4:20 pm
evolving squid if you want to see Cheneys head explode legalize gay marriage and outlaw guns.
January 30th, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Duke, this isn’t about the executive’s power to make decisions. He are already has that. This is about the executive’s power to suppress information that could be used in determining whether a decision is a good one or not. That is a completely different issue. Bush can already decide, to an extent, what the different federal agencies can do. What he is doing is deciding what scientists working at those agencies are allowed to say, and limiting their ability to report the results of their own research when it conflicts with his position.
No one can be expected to make the best decision unless he or she has access to the best information available, and no one is able to critique those decisions unless they too have access to that information. This isn’t about controlling the decision-making process, it is about controlling the flow of information that is used to make decisions.
The 60 days appears to only be if there is a disagreement that can’t be resolved. The President or one of his appointees telling an agency that they can’t publish scientific research because it conflicts with his existing policies would be a resolution, assuming the decision is made within 60 days.
January 30th, 2007 at 5:40 pm
To clear the record here, I don’t have a problem with government oversight of its agencies in general, of course. What I have a problem with is this particular White House doing it. Yup, I came right out and said it.
Why? Because the history of this Administration and the previous Congress toward science is one of almost brutal spin. So when the WH says they want someone in every agency appointed by them to bottleneck info coming out of that agency, their own previous documented history is what makes me “get the vapors”.
As for what this new Congress will do, well, we’ll see. I’m already thrilled that Waxman has called hearings, and the climate hearings that were today are a good sign. But we’ll see; it’s early yet.
January 30th, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Y’know, the first thing that came to mind when I heard this was: political officer.
January 30th, 2007 at 9:09 pm
Same here, Kesh.
This is chilling, indeed.
January 31st, 2007 at 2:05 am
I just watched a couple hours of the Congressional hearing which I think the MSNBC article Jim posted above reported on. If the article wasn’t on the hearings, it was on the same testimony given in the hearing.
Jim R Says:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16886008/?GT1=8921
It was chilling indeed. However, I see reason to cheer! If the Democrats keep this up we might even get moving forward again (2 steps fwd, 1 step back). Bush and the Republican controlled Congress went so far over the line, even some of the Republicans are unable to continue going along.
The testimony was shocking to everyone who wasn’t aware of the extent of the suppression of the scientific findings.
Yeah, Drew Shindell, NASA Research and Teaching, for his excellent excellent testimony.
Drew wasn’t quite as forceful overcoming the scientific uncertainty which we all understand as normal. He was being being attacked by one Republican Congressman, Darrell Issa, (a most hostile committee member). Issa kept trying to pin Shindell down with the question, “Is there doubt or not, yes or no?”
Rick Piltz, who had quit his government position in protest in 2005, used an interesting phrase testifying about the “scientific consensus” vs certainty the Congressman was using to distort Shindell’s answers. The phrase Piltz used was, “these people have a predatory relationship” with the normal uncertainty in science.
Shindell used the words, scientific consensus. I recommend we use the words, overwhelming evidence anywhere they apply. But Shindell did eventually get his message out despite the cross examination style questioning by the Republican Congressman trying to use the fact proof in science is rarely stated to claim lack of proof means the global warming deniers have equal credibility with other scientists.
And Dr. Francesca Grifo from the Union of Concerned Scientists did an excellent job unintimidated by the same Republican. He accused her of merely reporting anecdotes from complaining scientists. Of course she replied describing the careful methodology of the data collection. The Republican then said something to the effect, “Was your method of selecting the sample population peer reviewed?”
“Yes” and Dr Grifo went on to describe that process.
The Congressman mumbled something like, “Well you haven’t made your case as far as I’m concerned…” with absolutely no basis for his statement, of course.
Later Issa accused the Union of Concerned Scientists of representing left wing causes instead of science. Earlier he had apparently accused them of anti-war activism DURING THE VIETNAM WAR!
But one of the Democrats shot back that while the Republican was distorting the UofCS over events from 35 years ago, Bush had appointed an oil company lobbyist with no credentials in science to vet all the global warming research before it was released to anyone, even policy makers. That shut Issa up.
—–
If anyone knows of additional specific intimidation of scientists by the Bush admin or suppression of any scientific findings, there is a place you can report it.
From the Daily Kos, Jan 24,07
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/1/24/11426/3083
Democrats Form New Science Subcommittee
http://sciencedems.house.gov/about/default.htm
DS[Daily Kos]: How can citizens help the new I & O Subcommittee?
Rep. Miller: We’re still asking folks to come forward if they know of cases of the political manipulation of science, or of any “fraud, waste and abuse” in government research. You can e-mail my office at NC13.ScienceIntegrity[at]mail.house.gov, or you can send us an anonymous tip at
http://sciencedems.house.gov/contact/tipline_form.htm
—–
And one final note on those oversight appointments there seems to be some confusion about in these posts. It was noted in the hearing as, having a Bush political appointee oversee just about everything coming out of a number of government agencies from NASA to the FDA. Not good. The committee chair, Henry Waxman, vowed to not let it happen without attention being drawn.
Yes! We have a voice again.
January 31st, 2007 at 8:49 am
I find it hypocritical that the President implements “Signing Statements” when signing legislation from Congress that often negates the limitations that Congress explicitly put in the law, but then he cracks down on Federal agencies using “Guidance Documents” because they are affecting policy beyond the regulations themselves. Right.
Putting political appointees in charge of decision making is not making them more responsive to the people – it is making those positions more responsive to The President. There’s another term for that practice – cronyism. Appoint your good-ol-boy to do what you want and give him a cushy paycheck.
If the problem is the use of “Guidance Documents”, then limit or outlaw Guidance Documents. Guidance Documents are instructions or interpretations of how to implement policies that are not the regulations or policies themselves.
January 31st, 2007 at 11:40 am
Once again I have to ride in with the only reasonable stance:
Don’t trust either side.
I dunno, folks. I’m counting down the days until Bush leaves, too (my big bugaboo besides the anti-science is lack of border control- something I don’t even debate. We’re either a nation of laws or we’re not), but there’s a lot of silly histrionics in this thread.
I mean, seriously, we’re as bad as the Soviet Union now? Or Orwell’s literary nightmare? I mean, if you really feel that way, you’re having a dissociative event or something.
Well, I have Obama-fever. Anyone else?
January 31st, 2007 at 8:10 pm
Two more years of Bush the Second … ???
What will be left? What state -or rather tyranny -will y’all be in then?
IMPEACH “SHRUBYA” BUSH NOW!!
Get the spine to chuck out George the Second, his theocrat neo-con nutcases.
Then arrest and charge them with conspiracy to committ mass murder (Iraq & other wars), numerous cases of torturing, false imprisonment & violation of human & civil rights (Abu Ghraib, secret CIA jails, Guantanamo bay, et al) and treason for ripping up and urinating upon your
constituition.
Don’t wait. Enough damage – waaay more than enough damage has been done so far.
Then take tehfollowing steps – never again vote Republican or allow religiousbigots to uimpose their warped will on your democracy.
Leave the SW Asian region (Iraq,Iran, Palestine, etc ..) ther heck alone!
Adopt a new clause like the one you forced on post-war Japan ie. theUSA will NEVER again attack anywhere else ontheplanet except in strictly defined self-defense.
Come on America. You have such potential for goodscience, positive achivement, inspirational leadership why settle for less.
Having thrown oput Georhge the II ’s insane tyranny, why embrace, acceptor even allow the equal nutty despotism of your hereditary “Prez”
George the Second??
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!!
January 31st, 2007 at 8:45 pm
Oh and I forgot three other cruical steps you Americans need to take :
I) You need to apologise to the UN and the rest of the planet for the harm this illegal, unrepresentive, un-American* Bush II administration has done – accepting UN authority to avoid wars as was supposed to happen in the first place and working with the United Nations and other nations – esp. the Islamic ones you are so irrationally afraid of to prevent rather than incite wars. You should work for the mutual global disarming and reassuring of nations and UN global governance overall nations incl. China and yourselves.
* Un-American in the best sense of what America is meant to be about and unAmerican in that Bush thelessers rule is anti-American in results if not intention.
II) Take a U-turn on virtually every policy this Christian fundamentalist
neo-con fascist regime has instituted. (But an exception for the Moon-Mars space exploration program which should actually get the $ req. and become the new focus of the US military-Industrial wing)
III) STOP funding, arming and supporting Israel and insit onajust solutiopn to the plight of the Palestineans. Recognise that the creation of Israel was a huge mistake that now cannot be fully undone but which needs to be made into a good global citizen respecting the sovereignty and human rights of its neighbours (eg. Palestine, Lebanon, Iran, Syria, Jordan) in exchange for the same.
Yes the Shoah (Jewish Holocaust under the nazis) happened. yes the Jews were persecuted – mostly by Western nations -a lot of over history. But NO this does NOT give them the right to take overotherpeople’s nations, assassinate political opponents, murder, torture, destroy and persecute asthey’ve been doing lately themslves.
Israel cannot be -& shouldn’t be – destroyed. Same applies equally to Palestine, Lebanon, Iran and its other neighbours. If Israel has a right to defend itself from attacks, to have a nuclear deterent then so too does Palestine, Iran, Lebanon, et al..
Its long overdue that this basic principle of fair human equality of “inalienable right to peace, security, liberty and pursuit of happiness” was recognised and respected was accepted.
Leave Iran be!
When you – & the Isrealis have disarmed all your nukes & stop threatening to destroy it then you’ll be in a position to criticise them.
Until you are, try taking the measures I’ve suggested and becoming a halfway fair, reasonable and just superpower NOT the bullying, bigoted, crazy international monster you appear at present.
& in case you missed it before, first and foremost you really, really, _really_ need to :
IMPEACH BUSH NOW!
BTW. I’ve been to the US, I’ve got friends there, there’s a lot about yournation I love and respect. I beleive some Americans (eg. Martin Luther King, Presidents Carter, Wilson & Lincoln, John Steinbeck, Isaac Asimov and Carl Sagan) are among the greatest and best human individuals ever to have lived. I give you this blunt and honest advice Not because I hate you but because I consider myself your friend and supporter. Because it pains me so much to see y’all going so horribly wrong and because you deserve to be, have been & could be again so much better. Listen to what’s best about yourselves – not what’s worst.
(Apologies for the inevitable typos ..)
——————————
If anyone wants to quote or forward this rant (part or whole) anywhere feel welcome to too – you have my full permission – Hope it does some good & not just to my spleen!
January 31st, 2007 at 9:03 pm
I do believe quite a number of Americans apologized to the world when we failed to stop Bush from stealing the second election.
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/
I believe there are over 800 web pictures:
http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/1/
That are now in a book:
http://www.hylaspublishing.com/sorryeverybody.html
January 31st, 2007 at 9:05 pm
My mistake,
To date, more than 26,000 people have uploaded their thoughts, images,and opinions onto the site. Sorryeverybody.com has become a phenomenon, receiving more than 75 million hits each day from people around the world. After announcing the book project on the site, Zetlen reported receiving more than 700 comments in just a few hours.
January 31st, 2007 at 9:13 pm
Bush cannot be charged with treason. He is certainly guilty of it in the common sense of the word, but the US Constitution is very specific about what has to be done to make a charge of treason stick, and Bush has not done anything remotely close to it. And, frankly, I don’t think he would have the guts to do it, even if he wanted to — although you can never be sure how far a spoiled child will go when thwarted….
February 1st, 2007 at 7:43 am
[...] Where is the outrage?! Where is the “liberal media’s” criticism?! The New York Times is the only major outlet I can find to report on this and it’s up to independent bloggers to spread the word: http://www.badastronomy.com/bablog/2007/01/29/white-house-extends-control-over-agencies/ (Take a moment to read some of the comments on that site: You’ll hear from former citizens of Communist states who moved here to get away from this exact situation.) In other words, the president has recreated the Soviet politbureau. He is politicizing what should be politically neutral public service and information to prevent the releasing of a message that might be counter to his agenda (like evolution and global warming.) [...]
February 1st, 2007 at 12:57 pm
I wondered when I saw this story covered on the Daily Show and one of the few remaining actual news programs still on TV, Democracy Now!, whether it had been covered much on the news programs I hadn’t watched. It’s upsetting but not surprising to hear how little coverage the story received.
For a transcript of Democracy Now!’s coverage:
http://www.democracynow.org/article.pl?sid=07/01/31/1543215
CNN and I assume the other news agencies did report on the AP Wire service’s account of the hearing.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/01/30/congress.climate.ap/index.html
But the story was all but forgotten in today’s CNN news on the coming report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/02/01/climate.talks.ap/index.html
The U.S. government delegation was not one of the more vocal groups in the debate over the “very likely” statement for man-made warming, said other countries’ officials. Several delegates credited the head of the panel session, Susan Solomon, a top U.S. government climate scientist, with pushing through the agreement in just 90 minutes.
U.S. President George W. Bush acknowledged for the first time last month that global warming is occurring, but he remains opposed to mandatory regulations to cap greenhouse gas emissions that many nations favor.
…
This week’s report will also mark a departure from a November 2006 statement by the World Meteorological Organization, which helped found the IPCC. The meteorological organization, after contentious debate, said it could not link past stronger storms to global warming.
I wonder who was in that debate by the WMO? Was it just a narrow question they were debating? If so I can see it mis-leading the public who would think it was about global warming itself. A good deal of the public really believe there is little consensus among the scientific community that global warming is real. And behind that confusion has been an incredible dis-information campaign by the major oil companies. Those same oil companies have very strong ties to the Bush family and the Bush administration.
One has to wonder what was behind Bush’s changing position. It could have been the volume of research was just getting too hard to deny. I’m willing to bet that the knowledge an investigation into his dis-information campaign on global warming was coming was the reason for the change. It’s a classic Karl Rove ploy when this kind of bad publicity is coming. The Congressional findings of government science censorship is much less of a big deal if Bush removes the reason for the censorship in the first place. Bush stalled any CO2 emission regulations by suppressing the scientific evidence and now he can further stall any regulations claiming he will wait for voluntary decreases in emissions before considering mandatory ones.
News interviewer: “Mr President, can you comment on your administration’s suppression of evidence on global warming?”
Bush: “There’s nothing to comment on, I believe global warming is real.”
February 1st, 2007 at 4:53 pm
The written testimony of the hearing witnesses is here:
http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1162
February 1st, 2007 at 8:54 pm
It seems we have a lot of people suffering from BDS here. Bush Derangement Syndrome. It’s sad to see. Here’s some words from a conservative viewpoint…
“Global Whining
INVESTOR’S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 1/31/2007
Climate Change: Congress’ new majority conducts forums and hearings on global warming while accusing the administration of suppressing facts. But it is they who want to silence others and can’t handle the truth.
Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., chairman of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee, accused the Bush administration on Tuesday of attempting “to mislead the public by injecting doubt into the science of global warming.”
The Union of Concerned Scientists presented Waxman’s panel a survey of 279 climate scientists who claimed they’d been subjected to political pressure aimed at having them downplay the effects of global warming.
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed a forum at which senators could spout off on the dangers of global warming. Interestingly, as Democrats charge the administration with stifling discussion, Boxer opined: “We’re not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.”
Idaho Republican Larry Craig observed at the Senate forum that drastic federal legislation would crush the American economy while the economies of China and India expand without being subjected to curbs on greenhouse gas emissions, exempt as they are from Kyoto as “developing” countries.
Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., couldn’t be bothered to explain why her husband, co-President Bill Clinton, never submitted Kyoto to the Senate to be ratified. Nor she did explain why EU emissions rose in 2005 while U.S. emissions remained unchanged.
Rather, she responded to Craig by saying, “I reject that. We are the most innovative nation in the history of the world.” Yes, but only because we haven’t imposed draconian restrictions on ingenuity.
Mrs. Clinton neglected to comment on just why European signatories are failing to meet their Kyoto targets by wide margins or why China, where coal consumption is rising 14% a year and where a new coal-fired plant big enough to power San Diego is completed every 10 days, is exempt.
Mrs. Clinton, who sees this as “a problem whose time has come,” no doubt sees global warming initiatives as a back-door way of nationalizing the economy, and imposing new taxes and regulations, as she tried to do with her failed health care plan 12 years ago.
Fact is, Craig is right. As we’ve reported, the annual loss for the U.S., according to the U.N., could be as high as 1.96% of GDP. This means today’s $11.5 trillion economy would take a $260 billion hit every year, totaling more than $11 trillion by 2050.
Patrick Michaels, senior fellow in environmental studies at the Cato Institute, said: ” ‘Reversing’ warming would require reducing carbon dioxide emissions by 60% to 80%, which is simply impossible. The world economy would implode.” Is global poverty the Democrats’ solution to global warming?
For all that pain, there would be very little gain. The best estimate is that full compliance by Kyoto signatories, even if we were one of them, might reduce global temperatures by 0.04 degree Celsius over the next century, an amount too small to measure, considering natural fluctuations.
Among the scientists who have complained of being muzzled is James Hansen, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies. He did his complaining to a nationwide TV audience on CBS’ “60 Minutes,” during which he talked of “restrictions on the ability of scientists to communicate with the public.” Right.
If anyone wants to put restrictions on communicating with the public, it is the Green Gestapo and its supporters in both parties.
Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., once wrote to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson to demand that the company stop funding studies that dispute global warming hype. They demanded that it “acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing it or exacerbating it.”
Image that — demand. Talk about your, uh, “chilling effect” on scientific inquiry.
Not long ago Al Gore proclaimed, “The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category with people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.”
You know the type — people like Copernicus, who disputed the belief that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that it was flat.
February 1st, 2007 at 8:58 pm
And more conservative facts and logic for the BDS afflicted.. It must be sad to realize that the theocracy you thought was coming is actually in the form of the “Church of Global Warming”.
Best of the Web Today – February 1, 2007
By JAMES TARANTO
They Call This Science?
Rep. Henry Waxman’s House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform “took on the Bush administration’s handling of climate change science” in a Tuesday hearing, the New York Times reports:
The fourth witness was Francesca Grifo, who directs the scientific integrity program of the Union of Concerned Scientists, a private group that researches environmental, arms control and other issues.
Dr. Grifo’s testimony drew largely from a report produced by the Union of Concerned Scientists and the Government Accountability Project, a private group that defends whistle-blowers. The report, made public yesterday, is based on a Union of Concerned Scientists survey of federal climate scientists and interviews and document searches by the Government Accountability Project. It says it is common for scientists to be pressured to eliminate references to climate change, for their work to be changed to misrepresent their findings, and for climate-related materials to disappear from Web sites.
Almost 60 percent of the scientists who responded to the survey said they had personally experienced such an incident in the last five years, the report says, and those who said their work was most closely related to climate change experienced the most interference.
The survey is here (PDF), and a closer look at it ought to raise some doubts.
The relevant questions, 19-33, appear on pages 4-5. Questions 19-30 list 12 “types of activities affecting climate science” and ask the respondent if he has “perceived in others and/or personally experienced” them. (Question 31, a catch-all “other” category, can be ignored, since few bothered even responding to it.)
One problem is that of these 12 questions, only three–Nos. 20, 24 and 25–clearly indicate that the scientist responding agrees with the Union of Concerned Scientists on climate issues. A scientist who reports “self-induced pressure to change research or reporting in order to align findings with agency policy or to avoid controversy” (No. 23), for example, could feel such pressure to avoid raising doubts about global warming.
Note, too, the wording of that question: “self-induced pressure.” The scientists who answered “yes” to this question are reporting on their own state of mind, not any objective facts that may bear on it. The same is true of questions 24 and 25, which refer to “fear of retaliation,” and 27, which refers to “implicit expectation.”
Many of these questions, too, simply reflect the realities of working in any bureaucracy, public or private. No. 19 asks if the scientists have perceived of experienced “changes/edits during review that change the meaning of scientific findings.” Some have, but we have no basis on which to judge the merits of the disagreements between the scientists and their editors.
The biggest problem with the survey, though, is its basic methodology, explained on the first page of the PDF:
Following is the text of the survey UCS mailed to 1,630 federal climate scientists at seven federal agencies and departments, along with response data for the 279 scientists who completed and re- turned surveys.
That is, only about 17% of the scientists who received the survey actually filled it out and returned it. There is no reason to think this is a representative sample of the total population, and it seems reasonable to surmise that people who would go to the trouble of completing such a survey are more likely than those who wouldn’t to perceive themselves as under political pressure–i.e., to agree with the UCS.
To put it much more simply, this was an unscientific survey. If this is how these guys do social science, how can we trust them with the hard stuff”"
February 2nd, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Dave M says:
In the Senate, Barbara Boxer, D-Calif., chairman of the Environment and Public Works Committee, headed a forum at which senators could spout off on the dangers of global warming. Interestingly, as Democrats charge the administration with stifling discussion, Boxer opined: “We’re not going to take a lot of time debating this anymore.â€
Considering the most recent consensus statements coming from Europe, from “90%” of scientists in one relevant report, and even now from GW Bush that global warming is occurring, are you suggesting the debate should continue? Or should we start debating what to do about it, a debate which hasn’t started in our government?
The majority of Dave M’s posts list straw men arguments. The issue is not about Kyoto, competing with China, European hipocrisy or what Clinton did or didn’t do. The blog entry is about suppression of the information people need to make the decisions. Is there any evidence in what Dave M has posted that addresses the legitimacy of changing any of the scientific findings? No.
Isn’t it important to gather the best information, not just the convenient information before beginning the debate on what to do about it? Why do the oil companies seek to distort the science? Because it doesn’t matter to them what is the best decision for the country, what matters is what is the best decision for their profits.
The latter would be fine, IF the oil companies did not resort to unethical means of influencing the decision making. GW Bush and the Republicans who enjoy the benefits of his administration should be able to argue all they want to about their preferred course of action. It becomes unethical and dangerous for democracy when their political power is used to suppress evidence they believe doesn’t support their preferred course of action. Appointing an oil company lobbyist to oversee the “evidence” is too blatant even for Dave M and the right wing blogs. You don’t see anything addressing that in Dave’s posts and I doubt you will see any explanation how it wasn’t corrupt on any right wing blog. If you can get through the straw, that is.
Dave M adds:
Sens. Olympia Snowe, R-Maine, and Jay Rockefeller, D-W.Va., once wrote to Exxon Mobil CEO Rex Tillerson to demand that the company stop funding studies that dispute global warming hype. They demanded that it “acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing it or exacerbating it. 
Not long ago Al Gore proclaimed, “The debate’s over. The people who dispute the international consensus on global warming are in the same category with people who think the moon landing was staged on a movie lot in Arizona.â€
You know the type — people like Copernicus, who disputed the belief that Earth was the center of the universe, or Columbus, who disputed the international consensus that it was flat.
Again I remind you the scientific consensus is that global warming is occurring and that CO2 emissions are contributing, not that the jury is still out. Those consensus statements have again come to the forefront of the news. It isn’t merely my opinion.
The reason for complaints to the oil companies is reflected in Dave M’s post. The disinformation campaign by the oil companies trying to prevent legislation they perceived as harmful to their bottom line has been so pervasive, the public is unclear what the scientific consensus really is on global warming. Oil company disinformation has built multiple hurdles to informing the public. It’s going to take a long time to overcome the damage.
Dave M continues:
A scientist who reports “self-induced pressure to change research or reporting in order to align findings with agency policy or to avoid controversy†(No. 23), for example, could feel such pressure to avoid raising doubts about global warming. (emphasis mine)
Think about it! You’re saying a scientist who distorts his/her own findings is OK because he/she did it voluntarily? It doesn’t ask if the scientists were pressured to support contradictory evidence. It asks if they were pressured to change or alter their findings!
Dave M says:
1,630 federal climate scientists at seven federal agencies and departments, along with response data for the 279 scientists who completed and re- turned surveys.
That is, only about 17% of the scientists who received the survey actually filled it out and returned it. There is no reason to think this is a representative sample of the total population, and it seems reasonable to surmise that people who would go to the trouble of completing such a survey are more likely than those who wouldn’t to perceive themselves as under political pressure–i.e., to agree with the UCS.
Such survey returns are the norm, (maybe even higher than the norm for a mailed survey), yet the data have been shown to be reliable in research surveys done all the time. Dr Grifo testified the methodology and results were peer reviewed.
BUT, even though the respondents were self selected which is not being disputed, it only affects the measure of extent of the problem not the existence or non-existence of the practice. One research result being changed is too many. In terms of absolute numbers, 150 such events were reported in the survey.
From the survey report:
43% perceived or personally experienced changes or edits during review that changed the meaning of scientific findings.
In addition, the reports of altered findings came from:
More than half of respondents had more than 10 years of experience at their current agencies, and 44 percent had more than 15 years of experience. Eighty percent had earned a Ph.D. and 40 percent had post-doctoral research experience.
This is evidence of a widespread practice, not evidence of a few disgruntled employees.
The other inconvenient truth Dave M left out was the survey was only one piece of evidence the UCS reported at the hearing. In addition to the survey, the following is also in the testimony:
Over 1,800 federal scientists from multiple agencies have reported concerns.
• 699 scientists (39%) across 9 agencies have reported that they fear retaliation for openly expressing their concerns about the mission driven work of their agencies.
• 432 scientists from five agencies reported that they were not able to publish work in peer reviewed journals if it did not adhere to agency policies (25%).
• And, from the report we are releasing today, 150 federal climate scientists report personally experiencing at least one incident of political interference in the past five years, for a total of at least 435 such incidents.
Over 11,000 scientists, including 52 Nobel laureates, numerous other luminaries, and science advisors to both Republican and Democratic presidents dating back to Eisenhower, have signed our statement calling for a restoration of scientific integrity.
Our investigation uncovered numerous examples of public affairs officers at federal agencies taking an active role in regulating communications between agency scientists and the media—in effect serving as gatekeepers for scientific information.
We found agency climate scientists who
Were barred from speaking to the media with their
press inquiries routed to other scientists whose views
more closely matched administration policy.
Routinely encounter difficulty in obtaining approval
for official press releases
Two-thirds of respondents said that today’s
environment for federal government climate research
is worse compared with 5 years ago and ten years ago.
One of the congresswomen at the hearing said that she was told not to use the words climate change or global warming as well (I believe by a previous committee chair) which she found disturbing.
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/atmosphere-of-pressure.html
You will find links to additional reports below at the link to the UCS above
Evidence of Political Interference
A to Z Guide to Political Interference in Science
James Hansen censored
Climate change science distored
Hurricane science suppressed
Other UCS Surveys
Food and Drug Administration
NOAA Fisheries
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
February 4th, 2007 at 4:13 pm
Well my post [apparently too radically worded or too harsh on Bush, or I broke a rule?] is gone expressing shock and disbelief after a press conference with the Energy Secretary and a couple other Bush administration EPA people. They must have said Bush was pro-science 20 times. They gave Bush credit for investing our tax dollars in the best climate model computers money could buy and claimed the only reason climate change had not yet been addressed was they were all waiting for better science.
This morning I listened again to the testimony from the Congressional hearing on Bush’s policy of suppressing climate change science coming from government agencies.
You would think you were in Alice’s Wonderland given the absolute dissonance between these two events only 2-3 days apart.
The truth is out there. I shall be trying to track down the specifics which hopefully the news media won’t gloss over, giving Bush the usual pass on questioning the facts presented to the public.
Why do I say what the facts are likely to show before I’ve gathered them? Because the hearing contained specific evidence supporting its presentation of the facts, while the press conference was purely the administration’s word.
March 16th, 2007 at 8:33 am
[...] obvious, sweeping, and routine suppression of scientific findings for the past few years. Examples of this aren’t terribly hard to dig up. And those are just from my site. Try going to Chris [...]
September 27th, 2007 at 7:09 am
Ahhh stop griping, what’s good enough for other countries is good enough for the USA, what you think these so called western democracies are any better than the democracy that existed in soviet russia?
You honestly think the political parties arent just a sham ?
Havent you woken up to the fact that there is no democracy its one party – the rich – against the consumer and worker – all will work for the rich who sell to the poor and profit is king – forget it The USA is nothing but the same kind of piss poor democracy that Iran has become.
So one thing we should be thankful for – you are waking up at last ! What happened ?
some of us have been shouting out to you for decades!