[Vision2020] Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis (IPCC) Summary

[Ted Moffett]

Wayne et. al.

Doesn't this summary assume an understanding and respect for the basics of
the scientific method by policy makers?  And lacking such understanding and
respect, policymakers can ignore or marginalize this summary.

Anyone studying the Bush administrations overall approach to scientific
findings when they contradict their policy agenda reveals that science is
deliberately mystified and reconstructed to suit their aims...Here's what a
commentary in Scientific American details about the Bush administrations
history regarding respect for science:

http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=0001E02A-A14A-1084-983483414B7F0000


   April 26, 2004
   *Bush-League Lysenkoism*
   The White House bends science to its will
   By The Editors
   Starting in the 1930s, the Soviets spurned genetics in favor of
Lysenkoism, a fraudulent theory of heredity inspired by Communist ideology.
Doing so crippled agriculture in the U.S.S.R. for decades. You would think
that bad precedent would have taught President George W. Bush something. But
perhaps he is no better at history than at science.

In February his White House received failing marks in a statement signed by
62 leading scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, 19 recipients of the
National Medal of Science, and advisers to the Eisenhower and Nixon
administrations. It begins, "Successful application of science has played a
large part in the policies that have made the United States of America the
world's most powerful nation and its citizens increasingly prosperous and
healthy. Although scientific input to the government is rarely the only
factor in public policy decisions, this input should always be weighed from
an objective and impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences....
The administration of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this
principle."

Doubters of that judgment should read the report from the Union of Concerned
Scientists (UCS) that accompanies the statement, "Restoring Scientific
Integrity in Policy Making" (available at www.ucsusa.org). Among the
affronts that it details: The administration misrepresented the findings of
the National Academy of Sciences and other experts on climate change. It
meddled with the discussion of climate change in an Environmental Protection
Agency report until the EPA eliminated that section. It suppressed another
EPA study that showed that the administration's proposed Clear Skies Act
would do less than current law to reduce air pollution and mercury
contamination of fish. It even dropped independent scientists from advisory
committees on lead poisoning and drug abuse in favor of ones with ties to
industry.

Let us offer more examples of our own. The Department of Health and Human
Services deleted information from its Web sites that runs contrary to the
president's preference for "abstinence only" sex education programs. The
Office of Foreign Assets Control made it much more difficult for anyone from
"hostile nations" to be published in the U.S., so some scientific journals
will no longer consider submissions from them. The Office of Management and
Budget has proposed overhauling peer review for funding of science that
bears on environmental and health regulations--in effect, industry
scientists would get to approve what research is conducted by the EPA.

None of those criticisms fazes the president, though. Less than two weeks
after the UCS statement was released, Bush unceremoniously replaced two
advocates of human embryonic stem cell research on his advisory Council on
Bioethics with individuals more likely to give him a hallelujah chorus of
opposition to it.

Blind loyalists to the president will dismiss the UCS report because that
organization often tilts left--never mind that some of those signatories are
conservatives. They may brush off this magazine's reproofs the same way, as
well as the regular salvos launched by California Representative Henry A.
Waxman of the House Government Reform Committee [see
Insights<http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&colID=30&articleID=0000FF81-A7DD-1084-A73E83414B7F0000>]
and maybe even Arizona Senator John McCain's scrutiny for the Committee on
Commerce, Science and Transportation. But it is increasingly impossible to
ignore that this White House disdains research that inconveniences it.
---------
Ted Moffett


On 2/7/07, Art Deco <deco at moscow.com> wrote:
>
>  *
>
> Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis
>
> Summary for Policymakers
> *
>
> http://www.ipcc.ch/SPM2feb07.pdf
>
> =======================================================
>  List services made available by First Step Internet,
>  serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
>               http://www.fsr.net
>          mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070207/416c4d8f/attachment.html