The Union of Concerned Scientists is a hard-left lobbying group. Their only concern about biased data is that it isn't being biased to favor their agenda.
52 is a deck of cards and all run a chance.
Actually, Ben Franklin didn't say that, exactly ....
Did they mention Olympia Snow's censorship threat against any scientist who doesn't knuckle under to the Great Religion of Global Warming?
I suppose it is even more difficult to produce good science when its only purpose is to support the policies you have blind faith in.
For this group, and too many others, the "scientific process" itself is political.
"In the last several years, we've seen an increase in both the misuse of science and I would say an increase of bad science in a number of very important issues; for example, in global climate change, international peace and security, and water resources."
WHile I agree with the words, I really doubt he meant them the same way I would have.
It would be especially refreshing to see studies where the data, untwisted and undistorted, supported the conclusions drawn, particularly in the areas cited.
However, as long as funding sources seek particular conclusions and grant money is at stake in publish or perish university environments that simply isn't going to happen.
"Science" now includes computer models that are a farce. They are touted as "only a tool" for management of natural resources (water quality, global warming, etc.) but they are given the weight of reality. No one gets a good look at the assumptions made in loading the model, where common sense is most often absent and agendas abound.
Statistics can be bent to prove almost anything and so called scientists know how to manipulate the data to support a preconcieved agenda. "Science" on the Klamath is rife with politics. Presence/absence assumptions on coho are based on studies that did not span at least the 3 year established lifecycle of the fish. There can be a boom year or a bust year in any one of the three years.
In the upper Klamath, Dr. Hardy and his "science" has "proven" that more water should be going down the Klamath than is even naturally possible.
It's all politics. They like to make you believe that there is some empirical answer in science that can be relied upon as the "truth," but that is b.s. There is so much bias in the ologists that every fiding must be taken with great skeptisim.
Of course anyone with integrity would be concerned about twisted logic and warped thinking about science. But, IMO, there is no more or less untoward interference today. I am concerned just about the opposite; that the 10,000 researchers are attempting to force their warped thinking onto scientists of true integrity and honesty. Questioning questionable science is NOT political interference!
Not just a lie, a damned lie.
He was not put "under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues." He was ordered, flat out, to stop lying about NASA's position and conclusions as an agency. Hansen was claiming that he was making official statements of documented NASA conclusions when what he was doing was putting forward his own opinions as if they were agency policy. He was told he could talk all he wanted about his conclusions, but he was not authorized to speak on behalf of NASA or the US Government or say they they were the official NASA position. He also was urged to stop saying that his unsubstantiated opinions were fact proved by NASA studies. The studies he cited as proving his personal conclusions did include the data he cited, but they also included data that contradicted his conclusions. He chose to ignore those inconvenient facts and the other NASA researchers who challenged his conclusions and attempted to railroad through his politically motivated agenda under the guise of scientific method. When he got caught he screamed censorship.
There's a huge difference. This guy has more in common with the 6 flying Imams and the organization promoting this propaganda is using tactics suspiciously like CAIR.
The comments on this post make me think they have a point, unfortunately.
THEY ARE REJECTING GOVERNMENT FUNDING??????????????
Ben Franklin never said 'A Democracy' - because we ain't one. He said 'A Republic' - because that's what we are.
A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it.
THAT is what franklin said.
Does that mean that they don't want to fill out any more intrusive applications for federal grant money?
Actually, it's a republic, if you can keep it, FRiend.