Metacognition
Who do you want to win?
Published on August 9, 2004 By psychx In Politics

Disclaimer:  The following post is a compilation of a few allegations made by the Union of Concerned Scientists as well as tid bits from other facts that I came across while doing research.  This post is meant to inform of the unethical scientific polices within the Bush administration.  This is for people seeking facts that are willing to consider both sides.  Read at your own discretion. 

 

Copernicus and Galileo, two revolutionary thinkers that pioneered astronomy and had an enormous impact helping pave the way for modern astronomy and our understanding of it.  They also had another thing in common, these two modern thinkers self-censored their research and proof that the Earth revolved around the Sun for many decades.  The beliefs during the time they lived overshadowed their search for existential truths.  Their fear for upsetting the beliefs of the majority probably held them back from possibly doing more.  Centuries later it is the year 2004, science as we know it has advanced faster than it ever has before.  Galileo’s name is now attached to a space probe that visited Jupiter.  This honor was bestowed unto Galileo’s name because we know the impact that his findings and his discovery of Jupiter’s moons meant for science and mankind.  

 

It can be debated that we stand on the crossroads of scientific endeavors both for the prevention of the degradation of our environment and for the advancement of the biological sciences.  There is a saying that goes “the more things change, the more they stay the same”.  As advanced as we are there has been an issue as of late that many scientists and scholars within the intellectual community are calling unprecedented.  It seems that science once again is being suppressed based on beliefs. 

 

Recently a group called the Union of Concerned Scientists made of 62 scientists that are regarded as some of the world’s most intelligent minds are protesting the Bush administrations scientific policies.  On February 18th 2004, they released a statement titled “Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making”, which charged the Bush administration with "manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions."  Since then 4,000 prominent scientists have signed the report “Scientific Integrity and Policy Making”, including 48 Nobel laureates, 62 National Medal of Science recipients, and 127 members of the National Academy of Sciences.  Many of these scientists believe their research is being undermined or censored by this administrations pursuit to further their political agenda.  A good amount of these scientists have served under multiple administrations and include a mixture of Republicans and Democrats that goes to show that this goes far beyond partisan politics. 

 

"Withholding of vital environmental information is getting to be a bad habit with the Bush administration." -- Republicans for Environmental Protection

 

The claims of distortion of scientific findings coming from scientists, many leading in different fields of study, are numerous including air pollutants, heat-trapping emissions, reproductive health, endangered species, forest health, and military intelligence.  I will try and name a few in this blog so that the urgency and importance of these claims can be seen. 

Global warming is slowly becoming more and more of important subject to research on and pay close attention to.  One would suggest heeding any scientists advice towards what could increasingly become a global problem.  After withdrawing from the Kyoto Treaty, the Bush administration dismissed a climate report that Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) because it confirmed the potential worldwide harm that global warming may cause.  The administration completely denied the existence of global warming, even as increasing scientists warn of its possibility.  After coming into office the Bush administration asked the National Academy of Sciences to review a finding confirming the threat of global warming issued by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).  Their review issued a strong opinion that confirmed the IPCC’s findings.  That review can be found here Link .  Other organizations like the American Geophysical Union, the largest group of Earth scientists, also have issued strong statements describing the human caused carbon dioxide emissions disruption of our climate.  Their report can be found here Link .  Although these statements should bear weight they are dismissed as uncertainties by this administration and are too great to warrant any action to slow down emissions.

 

Later down the road in May of 2002 a State Department report was issued to the United Nations that pointed out humanity and its role in the emissions of heat trapping gases and gave descriptions of what consequences albeit negative of this impact on our climate.  The President called it “a report put out by the bureaucracy.”  So far that’s three organizations who have been dismissed.  In September of 2002, the EPA released their annual air pollution report Link , the administration promptly removed a section on climate change even though climate change has been discussed on each preceding report during the previous five years.  Still skeptical?  There’s one more that I will mention because I want to move on.  In June 2003 the Bush administration tampered with the integrity of the analysis of a federal agency, when they tried to make a series of changes to the EPA’s report on the environment Link  .  This broke out in the news on a front-page article by none other than the New York Times which stated White House officials tried to force the EPA to change the section of their report on climate change.  This report referenced the National Academy of Sciences review that I spoke about earlier and other studies that claim our production of heat trapping gases is impacting the environment substantially. (A.C. Revkin and K.Q. Seelye, “Report by EPA Leaves Out Data on Climate Change,” New York Times, June 19, 2003).  I have so much information about these attempted alterations I could go on for another five paragraphs but I must talk about the other issues. 

 

Mercury is a toxin that can cause brain and reproductive damage.  Yet coal power plants are the nation’s largest source of mercury air emissions creating 48 tons annually.   In May of 2002 the EPA was going to release a report on children’s health and the environment Link  but while getting ready to release it the White House Office of Management and Budget and the Office of Science and Technology Policy (OSTP) decided to review it.  Nine months later after a very lengthy delay an EPA official, probably upset with the White House, leaked the report to the Wall Street Journal including the finding in the research that stated 8% percent of women aged 16-49 have mercury levels in their body that can produce reduced IQ and motor skills in their children.  The research went against the administrations desire for reducing regulation on coal power plants.  The report was finally released officially to the public a few days after it was leaked to the press.  The EPA recently established new rules for regulating power plants’ mercury emissions, but the rules contained 12 paragraphs, at times verbatim, from a legal document prepared by coal plant industry lawyers.  Most EPA officials are upset and feel that these rules were added “through the interagency process”.   Bruce C. Buckheit who was the director of EPA’s Air enforcement division in 2003 and served in major federal environmental posts for 20 years claims “the new mercury rules were hatched at the White House; the Environmental Protection Agency’s experts were simply not consulted at all”.  He also has stated that this represents “a degree of politicization of the work of the Environmental Protection Agency that goes beyond anything I have seen in my career in government”.  So if these scientists are not being consulted one is given the impression that these decisions are being made for political reasons rather than scientific?  I’ll leave that up to the reader to decide.

 

I saved the best for last I believe since this concerns a heavily debated topic which Bush still enjoys a good amount of support for which is national security.  Before the war Bush, Rice, Cheney, and Powell stated that Iraq had tried to acquire over 100,000 aluminum centrifuges that were supposedly going to be used to enrich uranium.  President Bush stated this on September 12, 2002, in his address to the United Nations General Assembly and during the State of the Union address in January of 2003.  Colin Powell stated in the infamous meeting on February 5th, 2003 with the U.N. Security Council concerning Iraq’s “weapons of mass destruction”. 


The collective minds of the intelligence community needed to know whether these tubes were meant to be used as centrifuges for enriching uranium or any other purpose such as the casings for short-range rockets.  The CIA pushed the view that they were intended for centrifuges but technical experts from the Department of Energy, Oak Ridge, Livermore, and Lost Alamos National Laboratories disagreed with this interpretation because the tube dimensions were less than what was required for this purpose.  These dimensions matched those of tubes Iraqis used in the 1980’s.  In the past Iraqis have developed and tested tubes more capable for enriching aluminum than the ones discovered.  The laboratories’ and Department of Energy claims were backed by the State Department’s intelligence branch and the experts at the International Atomic Energy Agency.  The claims by Powell to the U.N. Security Council was after he was briefed by the International Atomic Energy Agency about their disagreement with the CIA analysis and was the central part of his speech to them.  Dr. David Albright, a weapons expert and president of the Institute for Science and International Security in Washington, DC, had this to say about it “It bespeaks something seriously wrong that a proper technical adjudication of this matter was never conducted.  There was certainly plenty of time to accomplish it”. Link   Today U.S. officials have finally acknowledged opinions that challenged their initial claim to the U.N. Security Council.  Was this a failure in intelligence?  I will leave that for the reader to decide. 

 

With all the research and reading I did to write this article, I only covered maybe 5% of the total allegations that are being made against this administration and their apparent mistrust of science.  The United States has an outstanding history of investing into science and later welcoming the benefits.  It’s one of the reasons why today we are the richest country in the world.  We’ve invented many things that helped shape the world as we know it today.  This administration’s disregard for science is the worst seen in at least 100 years.  It’s like the inquisition all over again.  These right wing idealists have disregarded and failed to consider the advice and consent of scientists.  Scientists that fail the Bush administrations political litmus test fail to get appointed to agencies, boards, and White House offices.  In a perfect world without flaws we could consider a purely idealistic society based on morals and infallibility.  Sadly the world is far from perfect and statistics speak volumes.  Ignoring scientific advice will only put the American public at risk.  It’s nice to think that by preaching abstinence only and ending education on protecting oneself against std’s, that will cause young adults to have less intercourse, less pregnancies, and disease transmission.  The reality is that statistics don’t lie and Bush has paid for this before, during Bush’s reign as governor in Texas during 1995-2000 he established abstinence only programs only to push the state into being ranked last in the nation in the decline of teen birth rates among 15-17 year old females Link .  What a nice way to think huh?  During his tenure Houston has become one of the worst polluted cities in the nation as well as the most obese.  How are these things happening?  Easily, with distorting facts and misrepresenting information to the public it is easy to get support for anything. 

 

Unless the public gets wise to the game, these unethical practices within this administration will continue.  Bush is making conservatives look like fundamentalists..  For some time I doubted my position on all things political.  Where I stood was not clearly defined and I lingered and flirted with the notion of being a moderate because of my belief in Christianity and science.  I now am on the left as long as the definition of this administration is blurred with an idealic disregard for any real facts.  This unprecedented and ill-advised disregard for science has 4000 scientists protesting against this administration.  These are some of our nations best and brightest, and their opinion should be worth something, if anything at least a consultation but it seems this administration rarely does that.  The way that things are going it’s possible that Bush gets re-elected, then maybe we can all go back to thinking the Earth is flat and science is a religion.  When ideals trample over logic, common sense, and ethics that can be perceived as corruption.  I will leave of with a quote from the ucsusa website. 


Science, like any field of endeavor, relies on freedom of inquiry;
and one of the hallmarks of that freedom is objectivity. Now
more than ever, on issues ranging from climate change to AIDS
research to genetic engineering to food additives, government
relies on the impartial perspective of science for guidance.
-- PRESIDENT GEORGE H. W. BUSH, 1990

 

I urge anyone who finds this article as interesting to please look on the Union of Concerned Scientists website to see even more reports and allegations.  Link




Comments (Page 1)
2 Pages1 2 
on Aug 09, 2004
Would this same "Union of Concerned Scientists" offer the truth regarding nuclear power, global warming, energy policy that is being sought in the current debate over genetic engineering? My estimation is a resounding NO! Politics do not belong in science. There is no consensus on global warming models or data. We should not ratify a treaty that severly limits American buisness based on inconclusive data. Furthermore the Kyoto treaty does not apply the regulations equally, penalizing the United States far more than China for instance.
I am currently a Chemistry/Biology Dual major, and have not seen the universial agreement that proponents of Kyoto claim exsists among scientists, in my studies. Politics have no place in the search for truth and as your post so notably states this is a political discussion not a scientific inquiry.

Sincerely, Chris Oliver
on Aug 09, 2004
How I wish I could give you more than one insightful! This is one of the best articles I've seen. When people start really looking at the way Bush and his has manipulated, snuck, hidden, and twisted so many different things to suit their agenda, they will have to see the truth, won't they? I am goingto the link and I am going to keep commenting here to try to get this one seen and read.
on Aug 09, 2004

I dunno, to me people who spout off about global warmining usually have little idea what they're talking about.  They sound like christian fundamentalists who trot out "scientists" who "prove" evolution is false.

What we do know is that the earth's mean temperature probably increased around 1 degree in the 20th century.  We also know that C02 is a green house gas.  But we do not know to any degree of real certainty whether the amount of CO2 put into the air by humans is anywhere near enough to contribute noticeably to the warming of the planet.

The earth is currently COOLER than it has averaged in the past 10,000 years. Many scientists and those like me who follow this stuff from a non-political perspective consider it quite likely that the earth is moving towards its equilibrium point again.

But for me, the global warming zealots just don't seem very serious. If they were, they would be pushing for the widespread adoption of technology sources today that could reduce CO2 emmissions such as nuclear energy (there are no other "alternative" energy sources even remotely capable of generating the kinds of energy that fossil fuels can). 

If the sky is indeed falling, then by all means, let's move to safe nuclear power.  But oh, no, can't have that. The same people who rail against Bush are almost always against nuclear power. So how seriously are they really taking global warming? Not very apparently.

But yes, you can always trot out some group of scientists to back virtually any opinion.  Sure, they can't predict the weather even 2 days ahead of schedule with a reasonable degree of accuracy let alone get the mean summer temperature of a region right but they can magically "model" what the temperature will be in 50 years.

 

on Aug 09, 2004

BTW, nuclear power would also resolve the mercury emissions issue as most mercury emissions come from power plants.

So I guess we can assume you guys are all big supporters of nuclear power right?

on Aug 09, 2004
The "environmentalists" are not a monolithic group. And yes, most of the ones who are very concerned about global warming are also in favor of nuclear power. (I favor nuclear power too.)

The earth is currently COOLER than it has averaged in the past 10,000 years


The thing at issue is that the *rate* of warming is much greater than it has been, and the timing of the acceleration in warming corresponds fairly well to greenhouse gas emissions. It would be quite a coincidence if there wasn't some relationship--especially since basic physics tells you there *should be* a cause and effect relationship of some sort.
on Aug 09, 2004
So I guess we can assume you guys are all big supporters of nuclear power right?


I am a supporter of nuclear power, I'm not sure where the stereotype comes from that liberal environmentalism-minded people are agaiinst nuclear power. Perhaps it's true, it's not an issue I've thought about a lot, political viewpoints of nuclear power, all I know is that I for one have always been a supporter of it.
on Aug 09, 2004

Ok, this is what I am talking about some great replies by all of you. 


Politics have no place in the search for truth and as your post so notably states this is a political discussion not a scientific inquiry.
Chris I see your point of view and agree that as far as the research it should never be biased and always allow freedom of inquiry as Bush Sr. so eloquently stated.  The very fact that it has become politicized within this administration is what's unprecedented.  This nation has thrived off of our technological supremacy and we must look back on that freedom and support that was given to scientists.  When it comes to national policies that affect or will affect all citizens such as global warming or our air quality these are things that must be found out through empirical studies not just dismissed.  In California smog just surpassed homicide as the greater killer of people.  It no longer is just a nuisance but a necessity that we address these issues and consult the minds behind the solutions.  I think we are the number one consumer of oil in the world, technology exists that could alleviate our dependency on oil and we should strive to research and refine them.  As far as a consensus for global warming that's why we have to get behind research and fund it accordingly, in a 2001 assessment the intergovermental panel on climate change had this to say;


"Climate change is underway. Or in the IPCC's own words: "An increasing body of observations gives a collective picture of a warming world and other changes in the climate system."

* Human activities do and will continue to alter the composition of the atmosphere.

The IPCC states, "emissions of greenhouse gases and aerosols due to human activities continue to alter the atmosphere in ways that are expected to affect the climate." Adding that trends of greenhouse gas emissions from human activities point further upward, the scientists argue that significant emission reductions would be necessary to stabilize the climate.

* Recent warming can be largely attributed to human causation. More strongly than ever, the IPCC states in its 2001 assessment, "There is new and stronger evidence that most of the warming observed over the last 50 years is attributable to human activities.""


Wisefawn I'm glad you liked the article I tried to make it as detailed and reader friendly as possible.  I was taken back by the amount of allegations, I mean it is substantial and well documented.  Most of these facts had to be taked throught Freedom of Information Act otherwise they wouldn't have been published. 


Brad I would be for nuclear energy completely if they made it into a cleaner alternativel.  If the risks associated with storage and the radioactive halflife of the waste that can last about 500 years could be limited than I would be completely for it.  On the other hand considering there are many different Nuclear power plants and we have had only one cause substantial damage (Chernobyl) that is a good record for any energy source. 

on Aug 09, 2004
Another big issue that will soon start to impact the world is China's up and coming economic boom.  Currently cars are selling like hot cakes over there.  With their large population their increasing depedency on natural resources will only become greater causing even more reason to play close attention to our emissions. 
on Aug 09, 2004
I've looked at the main link and I'm so glad you posted it. It's yet another site I had never heard of. This is the kind of article I love seeing!
on Aug 09, 2004
It's important to remember though that nuclear power is not clean. Not only does it create dangerous waste products (which can however be quite safely stored according to most scientific sources) but the mining of ores for the reactor produces considerable pollution. Not as much as a coal powerplant of course, but then there are very few things save the chemical industries and goldmining which are as high in pollution output as a coal plant.

Alternative energy sources are possible and there is continual improvements in both design and power output. For example in the South Australian desert plans are currently being finalised for a giant powerplant which relies on air convection in a metal tube to shift turbines for power rather than water or fossil fuels. This may be a pie-in-the-sky project, as the monolith is supposed to end up being one of the tallest structures in the world, but research in this area and others suggest that there are other alternatives to abundant clean power than just nuclear power.

As for global warming, it is definitely happening (consider the decay and destruction of the Great Barrier Reef, or the disappearing islands of the Pacific) but whether its cause can be solely attributed to human intervention is doubtful. If I remember my high school science lessons correctly Krakatoa put out more carbon dioxide than the entire industrial revolution to that point and the cattle industry worldwide creates more pollution than nearly anything else. It might be wise to limit CO2 output, but only really in the interests of efficiency. The less crap you put in the air the more you've got to make dodgy toys with.
on Aug 09, 2004
It's actually not that hard to figure out how much CO2 we've put into the atmosphere. We know that every ton of coal burned creates a certain amount of CO2, every ton of oil or gas gives a certain amount, etc. So you can look at some pretty solid economic data and figure out the human contribution to global CO2 concentrations. It's really quite large. Human activity will cause at least a doubling of CO2 from its natural level under any reasonable set of assumptions, and most of that is due to fossil fuels.

The cattle industry causes more *methane* pollution than anything else. This is a significant contributor to global warming, but CO2 is much bigger.
on Aug 09, 2004

vincible: We can reasonable fiture out how much CO2  humans put in the atmosphere. But we have no way of telling how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere from other sources. 

Also, there are no current viable alternatives to fossil fuel. It's a matter of scope.  The amount of gigjoules of energy we consume isn't ging to be even remotely touched on by wind power or solar power or biodiesel or whatever.  The ONLY technology presently we have is nuclear poewr and like someone else pointed out, it has its own issues. But it wouldn't have CO2 issues.

The rate of temperature increase is not unusually high. 1 degree in the 20th century isn't that massive.  Sure, there are predictions of higher temp changes but during the 80s it was "global cooling" that we were told to be afraid of.

Blaming Bush, either way, seems silly to me.

on Aug 09, 2004
The ONLY technology presently we have is nuclear poewr and like someone else pointed out, it has its own issues. But it wouldn't have CO2 issues.


Agreed, I'll take the issue with nuclear power over the issues with CO2 any day, personally.

Blaming Bush, either way, seems silly to me.


I don't blame Bush for the problem, just for delaying work towards a solution. *Shrug*
on Aug 10, 2004
vincible: We can reasonable fiture out how much CO2 humans put in the atmosphere. But we have no way of telling how much CO2 is put into the atmosphere from other sources.


Well, that's only partially true, but it doesn't even really matter.

We have a good idea of what the natural sources and sinks of CO2 are. Biomass, oceans, volcanic activity, etc. We know that they've pretty much been in equilibrium--absorbing as much as they emit--in the past, for a very long time, and that they haven't changed by that much. Now, just when we dump a few hundred billion tons of CO2 into the atmosphere, the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere increases--by close to the amount you would predict if the natural sources and sinks had kept on doing what they've been doing for millenia.

Here's an analogy. Say you have a saltwater lagoon. You have no idea how much salt is coming in or going out due to runoff, rivers, etc. But it's been pretty much the same salinity for decades. Then you crash a truck carrying salt into the lagoon, and the salinity increases. And furthermore, the salinity increases by roughly the amount that the truck was carrying. It's pretty perverse to deny that the truck is responsible, just because we don't know about the other sources in detail.

Seriously, this part of the science is utterly uncontroversial. Even the skeptics don't debate it.

there are no current viable alternatives to fossil fuel. It's a matter of scope. The amount of gigjoules of energy we consume isn't ging to be even remotely touched on by wind power or solar power or biodiesel or whatever. The ONLY technology presently we have is nuclear poewr and like someone else pointed out, it has its own issues.


In the short term, I agree. Energy conservation measures do work, though. California, when it had its energy crisis, decreased its electricity consumption by over ten percent, mostly through voluntary means.

Automobile efficiency standards--or better, a carbon tax--would reduce our consumption of fossil fuels. This is good both from an environmental and a foreign policy standpoint. Encouraging other efficiencies--like in household appliances--would also help quite a bit.

In the longer term, fossil fuel industries are heavily subsidized by the federal government. This puts alternative fuels at a competitive disadvantage and discourages research in them. These subsidies should be reduced or eliminated--not just on environmental grounds, but also on purely economic ones (but it doesn't happen, on political grounds). Also, some major consumers of fossil fuels--ie cars--are heavily subsidized as well.
on Aug 10, 2004
Unfair title, I think. Bush represents the feelings of a lot of people, not just himself or a few of his cronies as he is portrayed. Many, many people would differ from the scientists mentioned, especially in terms of how their ideas should be implemented.

That's the thing, though. These people don't have to worry about jobs, or funding, or anything else. Environmentalists are brains in vats most of the time. They spout theory and demand action with no regards to the secondary problems and damage it creates. They just lay out the doomsday schtick and then leave people with real responsibilities to deal with it.

Anyway, any number of Democratic interests would be opposed to bowing to the assertions of a relatively small group of politically motivated scientists. The AFL/CIO and other unions are by far the largest power base in the Democratic party, and convincing them to sacrifice pay and jobs would be just shy of futile. They are traditionally one of the toughest groups on environmentalists, and they are *not* fans of Bush.

So, in that light, I think you are using the "Bush" part to serve your own bias. There's a lot of people that would disagree on the whole or in part with the "Union of Concerned Scientists", some of them *gasp* Bush opponents and *double gasp* scientists themselves.
2 Pages1 2