| Author |
George W. Bush;s Resume (C.V) |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
@batesie:
The Union of Concerned Scientists Document
“Scientific Integrity in Policymaking: An Investigation into the Bush Administration’s
Misuse of Science” – February 2004
ADMINISTRATION SUMMARY RESPONSE
April 2, 2004
Claim: The Bush Administration has consistently sought to undermine the viewpoint that humancaused
emissions contribute to global warming
Response:
• President Bush has clearly acknowledged the role of human activity in increased atmospheric
concentrations of greenhouse gases, and launched a major, prioritized scientific effort to improve
our understanding of global climate change. In his June 11, 2001, Rose Garden speech on
climate change, he stated that the “[c]oncentration of greenhouse gases, especially CO2, have
increased substantially since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution. And the National
Academy of Sciences indicate that the increase is due in large part to human activity … While
scientific uncertainties remain, we can now begin to address the factors that contribute to climate
change.”
• The President initiated the Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), which released its Strategic
Plan in July 2003. This plan, which received favorable reviews from the National Academies in
February 2004, incorporates comments and advice from hundreds of scientists both in the U.S.
and internationally. It is consistent with the view held by the vast majority of scientists that
further scientific research into the causes and impacts of climate change is warranted.
Claim: Administration omitted critical language on climate change from the EPA Report on the
Environment
Response:
• Following a standard interagency review, EPA decided that, in lieu of the brief 4-page treatment
of climate science contained in its initial draft report, it would be more thorough to refer readers
to the Strategic Plan for the CCSP. The review process resulted in many comments on the
climate section, indicating that the complexity of climate change science was not adequately
addressed by EPA’s short draft. Instead, the final EPA report referred readers to the far more
expansive and complete exposition of climate change knowledge, the 205-page CCSP Strategic
Plan.
• The CCSP, of which the EPA is a member, was due to release the extensive Strategic Plan for the
U.S. Climate Change Science Program (this strategic plan was released July 24, 2003; the EPA
report was released June 23, 2003). The CCSP report contained a more thorough analysis of the
relevant science, had the advantage of endorsement by the 12 Federal agencies that fund various
aspects of climate change research (nearly $2 billion annually), and went through extensive
review and comment from the scientific research community prior to release.
Claim: The Administration does not invite EPA to participate in climate issues and former OSTP
official Rosina Bierbaum claims the Administration excluded OSTP scientists from climate change
discussions
Response:
• The Administrator of EPA is a member of the cabinet-level Committee on Climate Science and
Technology Integration and the EPA is a member of the subsidiary bodies, such as the
Interagency Working Group on Climate Change Science and Technology, the Climate Change
Science Program, and the Climate Change Technology Program. EPA co-chairs the National
2
Science and Technology Council’s Committee on Environment and Natural Resources, which has
oversight of the Subcommittee on Global Change Research.
• The cabinet-level discussions referenced by Dr. Bierbaum led to various options to strengthen the
existing program and included the participation of numerous, highly expert Federal career
scientists including Dr. David Evans, former Assistant Administrator for Oceanic and
Atmospheric Research at NOAA, Dr. Ari Patrinos, Associate Director of the Office of Biological
and Environmental Research at the Department of Energy, and Dr. Dan Albritton, Director of the
Aeronomy Laboratory of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research at NOAA. The result of these
discussions led to the recommendation to form the Climate Change Science Program.
Claim: Cancelled publication of carbon sequestration brochure
Response:
• The USDA’s Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) decided not to republish the
brochure because the information was outdated and did not reflect significant recent decisions by
USDA to consider greenhouse gas reduction and carbon sequestration in setting priorities for
conservation programs. Nevertheless, approximately 37,000 existing brochures remain available
for distribution. The document is posted on the Soil and Water Conservation Society web-site:
http://www.swcs.org/docs/carbon_brochure.pdf. Links to the document are found on the NRCS
website: http://www.nrcs.usda.gov/news/releases/2000/000424.html.
• USDA is working with the Department of Energy to develop accounting guidelines for
greenhouse gas reporting for agriculture. Once these guidelines are available, USDA will reprint
this brochure including information on how farmers can use the new guidelines
Claim: Delay on EPA Report on Children’s Health Indicators
Response:
• The interagency review of the EPA report on children’s health and the environment was not
related to and occurred independently of the Administration’s deliberations on mercury emissions
from power plants. The report was released in February 2003.
• Information on risk levels for children born to women with at least 5.8 ppb of mercury in their
blood (8% of women of child-bearing age in 1999-2000) was included in the report, not
suppressed.
• In fact, this information was available well before the EPA report through the CDC and it
indicated that 10% of women of child-bearing age had blood mercury levels above the reference
dose.
• The updated risk levels were used by the Administration in the preparation of its regulatory
proposal to reduce mercury emissions from coal-fired power plants.
Claim: Use of industry language in rule-making
Response:
• This was a proposed rule, not a final rule, and the paragraphs appeared in the descriptive portions
of the preamble of the proposed rule, not the proposed regulations themselves.
• The language at issue was derived from two memoranda submitted as public comments to the
public docket. Such direct use without citation was unfortunate, but involved text that had
nothing to do with the integrity of the science used by EPA.
Claim: Withholding information on multiple air pollutants
Response:
• An EPA evaluation of proposed air pollution legislation by Senators Carper, Gregg, and Chafee
(S. 843) was not withheld.
3
• EPA submitted a cost analysis of the legislation to the Senators in early summer 2003, and
submitted a benefits analysis in October 2003.
• Moreover, the Energy Information Administration (EIA) also analyzed and compared the costs of
S. 843 and S. 485 (the Administration’s Clear Skies proposal), and provided the analysis to
Congress in September 2003.
Claim: Distorting scientific knowledge on reproductive health issues – abstinence-only education
Response:
• Currently, the Federal government funds abstinence-only programs through the Health Resources
and Services Administration (HRSA) and the Assistant Secretary for Health.
• There are no CDC science-based performance measures for these programs. The program was
not designed as a scientific study, so even if the original performance measures had been kept,
very little useful scientific data would have been obtained.
• There is a long-range scientific evaluation of these programs currently being conducted.
Claim: Altering information on a condom fact sheet on the CDC website
Response:
• The CDC routinely takes information off its website and replaces it with more up-to-date
information.
• The condom fact sheet was removed from the website for scientific review and was updated to
reflect the results of a condom effectiveness review conducted by the National Institutes of Health
and new research from other academic institutions.
• The condom information sheet was re-posted with the new information.
Claim: Posting information suggesting a link between abortion and breast cancer
Response:
• The National Cancer Institute (NCI) “Abortion and Breast Cancer” fact sheet has been revised
several times since its origin in 1994.
• NCI temporarily removed the fact sheet from the website because of conflicting information on
the issue.
• In February 2003, NCI convened a workshop of over 100 of the world's leading experts who
study pregnancy and breast cancer risk. They concluded that having an abortion or miscarriage
does not increase a woman's subsequent risk of developing breast cancer.
• A revised fact sheet was posted on the NCI website shortly after the workshop reflecting the
findings.
Claim: USDA suppressed Dr. James Zahn’s analysis on airborne bacteria
Response:
• Dr. Zahn did not have any scientific data or expertise in the scientific area in question. Dr.
Zahn’s assigned research project involved the management of odors from hog operations.
• Permission to speak to the Adair (Iowa) County Board of Health meeting, as an Agricultural
Research Service (ARS) representative, was withdrawn when it was learned that Dr. Zahn was
expected to speak on human health risks of hog confinement operations, an area in which Dr.
Zahn did not have any scientific data or expertise.
• Dr. Zahn received approval to report on his preliminary observations of dust borne antibiotic
resistant bacteria at the 2001 meeting of the American Society of Animal Science and at a 2001
National Pork Board Symposium. On numerous occasions he received approval to present and
publish his research on volatiles and odors from swine manure. Approval was denied five times
for him to discuss the public health ramifications of his observations on spread of antibiotic
resistant bacteria, because he had no data or expertise with respect to public health.
4
Claim: USDA ‘Sensitive Issue’ List identifies areas to censor scientists’ work
Response:
• USDA headquarters has had a long-standing, routine practice (at least 20 years) to require the
ARS to review research reports of high-visibility topics (called the “List of Sensitive Issues”).
• ARS headquarters reviews, when required, do not censor, or otherwise deny publication of, the
research findings. This practice does not relate to the initial research priority setting process or
determinations of which studies will be undertaken.
• The purpose of this review is to keep ARS Headquarters officials informed before publication of
new developments on cutting edge research, controversial subjects, or other matters of potential
special interest.
Claim: Misrepresenting evidence on Iraq’s aluminum tubes
Response:
• Director of Central Intelligence George Tenet addressed this issue directly in his February 5,
2004, speech at Georgetown University.
Claim: Manipulation of science regarding the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
Response:
• The current listing situation results from Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) practices in place
before the Bush Administration took office to disregard the ESA by listing endangered species
without designating associated critical habitat (as well as by ignoring pending petitions to list
species). Fulfilling the resulting court orders now consumes the FWS listing budget. This
Administration has taken steps to redirect additional funds to this budget account, and the
President's FY05 Budget requests an increase of more than 50 percent.
• The Administration is also focusing on enhancing and restoring habitats of threatened and
candidate species population via partnership with States, local governments, tribes, landowners,
conservation groups, and others to conserve species through voluntary agreements and grant
programs -- thus keeping them off the list by preventing these species from becoming threatened
in the first place.
Claim: Manipulation of Missouri River Biological Opinion
Response:
• While the UCS accuses the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) of acting to prevent the 2000
Biological Opinion from taking effect in 2003, that Opinion had actually been in effect since its
issuance. Further, amending the 2000 Biological Opinion was required under the Endangered
Species Act because the Army Corps of Engineers had submitted proposed updates to its Master
Water Control Manual for the Missouri River. In this proposed update, the Corps noted new
information concerning the rebound of two of the three species found in jeopardy under the 2000
Opinion.
• The FWS accelerated its consultation process in order to allow sufficient time for the Corps to
meet court-ordered deadlines. A team of 15 FWS experts (including 7 from the 2000 team) with
a collective 300 years of experience was assembled. The team determined that jeopardy still
existed for one of the three species originally found in jeopardy, and imposed specific biological
and habitat development targets to protect all three species.
• The two career Federal officials leading the team noted that the 2003 amended Biological
Opinion process followed a mandate to go “where the science leads us,” and that they were
unhindered in pursuing a project with “only one focus: the pursuit of science and the well-being
of the species.”
5
Claim: USDA manipulated the scientific process on forest management
Response:
• A Science Consistency Review (SCR) was conducted to assess the draft supplemental
environmental impact statement (DSEIS) from a scientific perspective.
• The SCR judges whether scientifically rigorous information has been considered and used in the
draft documents that underlie and implement land management decisions.
• The SCR consisted of 13 members of which 11 were scientists (of these 11, 2 were from the
Forest Service and 9 were external to the government).
• The draft documents, the SCR, the response to the SCR, the responses to public comments, and
the final supplemental environmental impact statement are all available at
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/snfpa/ for review so that anyone can access the scientific information
used and the process that utilized this information.
Claim: Misleading statements and omissions on the OMB Draft Scientific Review Bulletin on Peer
Review
Response:
• OMB did not propose a new government-wide rule, but rather proposed a new Bulletin or
guidance document under the Information Quality Act (IQA) and other authorities. The purpose
of the bulletin is to help ensure the quality of the science upon which important policy decisions
are based. It published the draft Bulletin in the Federal Register and sought comments on all
aspects, including its scope.
• This OMB peer review initiative does NOT prohibit scientists receiving government funds from
serving on peer review panels. The draft bulletin cites government research funds as one factor
that agencies should consider when determining which scientists should be selected. Research
funds from business are also cited as a source of conflict of interest that needs to be considered.
• Finally, the proposed OMB Bulletin contains no intention of excluding those who are most
qualified, or slowing down agency regulatory proceedings. A well-conducted peer review
process can accelerate the rulemaking process by reducing controversy and protecting any
resultant rules against legal and political attack.
Claim: Undermining the quality and integrity of the appointment process
Response:
• The Administration has over 600 scientific advisory committees. HHS, alone, has 258 advisory
committees.
• Every individual who serves on one of these committees undergoes extensive review, background
checks, and is recognized by peers for their contributions and expertise.
• Panels are viewed from a broad perspective to ensure diversity; this may include gender,
ethnicity, professional affiliations, geographical location, and perspectives.
Claim: Industry influence on lead poisoning prevention panel
Response:
• Composition of the panel had no bearing on the issue of toughening the lead poisoning
guidelines.
• For a variety of scientific reasons, CDC decided to emphasize preventing exposure of children to
lead, not lowering the lead poisoning guidelines.
• These reasons included the fact that there are no clinical interventions (treatments) to reduce
blood lead levels that are 10 micrograms (current guidelines) and below. In other words, we need
to prevent poisoning at the outset.
• Regarding the issue of appointments, the members in question replaced outgoing members who
had served several terms and others who had permissibly served beyond the expiration of their
6
present terms. Therefore, it was part of the normal advisory committee process to identify new
members.
• CDC and the Office of the Secretary worked to find a balanced slate of individuals who would
reflect a diverse set of opinions.
Claim: Political litmus tests on workplace safety panel – ergonomics
Response:
• HHS worked with Director of National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (NIOSH) to
find a balanced slate with a diversity of viewpoints.
• Agencies typically review many individuals to serve on advisory panels and they may be rejected
for a variety of reasons.
• In this instance, one of the scientists that the UCS mentions was actually selected to be appointed
to the committee.
Claim: Non-scientist unqualified to serve in senior advisory role to the President
Response:
• This claim is highly offensive.
• Senior positions within OSTP are defined by the Director, who in this Administration has
significantly reorganized the office to strengthen coordination with other relevant policy offices
and congressional committees. Mr. Russell has superior qualifications for the functions he
performs in this organization.
• The American Association of Engineering Societies (AAES), the umbrella organization for
Engineering Societies which represents over one million engineers, endorsed Mr. Russell’s
candidacy.
• The Senate concurred with AAES’ assessment and confirmed Mr. Russell by unanimous consent.
Claim: Underqualified candidates in health advisory roles
Response:
• Both the individuals cited by the UCS are in fact well qualified.
• Their CV’s are widely available and it is not necessary to repeat them.
Claim: Political litmus test used for National Institute for Drug Abuse (NIDA) scientific appointees
Response:
• The HHS Office of the Secretary’s office recommended that Dr. Miller, the candidate in question,
be considered for the NIDA advisory panel and NIDA did not concur.
• The decision by NIDA/NIH was not based on any conversations with the Secretary’s office.
Claim: Nominee to the Army Science Board was rejected because he had contributed to the
presidential campaign of Senator John McCain.
Response:
• Nominees for standing membership are approved at several levels within the Army and the Office
of the Secretary of Defense, and some may be turned down during this process for various
reasons.
• Mr. Howard, the individual identified by the UCS, has expertise relevant to defense issues, and
his technical advice has been sought on Army Science Board, Air Force Science Advisory Board,
and Defense Science Board studies as a consultant during the current Administration.
7
Claim: National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) dismissed advisory panel
Response:
• NNSA Advisory Committee was established in June 2001, not by Congress, but by the
Department of Energy to advise the NNSA Administrator on a wide range of issues affecting the
then newly established NNSA.
• The charter expired in June of 2003 and was not renewed.
• NNSA gets input from the U.S. Strategic Command Strategic Advisory Group, the Defense
Science Board, the Secretary of Energy Advisory Board, and the National Academy of
Sciences/National Research Council.
Claim: Arms control panel that advised State Department on technical matters was dismissed
Response:
• The Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Group had reached the end of its two-year
charter (as set forth in the Federal Advisory Committee Act (5 U.S.C. Appendix 2)).
• The Arms Control and Nonproliferation Advisory Group has been reauthorized by Under
Secretary of State for Management, Grant Green, and the specific membership is currently under
consideration.
Claim: A pattern of inserting politics into science
Response:
• The UCS document concludes with a series of quotations but does not provide a single instance
of an actual suppression of agency research or an appointment irregularity occurring.
• Individual opinions are not actual events whose facts can be determined. With no context, one
must assume these opinions are based upon the type of misinformation presented throughout the
UCS document.
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. | |
|
friscosjoke
Joined: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 100
From: my mommy's tummy.
PM |
As I sit in my newly found Orlando home, everynight on the local news there seems to be a story that tells of how the government is trying to ensure that this years election does not repeat the woes of 2000.Then a 2 second blurp catches my attention a little further research reveals this on MSNBC,July 19 issue - American counterterrorism officials, citing what they call "alarming" intelligence about a possible Qaeda strike inside the United States this fall, are reviewing a proposal that could allow for the postponement of the November presidential election in the event of such an attack, NEWSWEEK has learned.
The prospect that Al Qaeda might seek to disrupt the U.S. election was a major factor behind last week's terror warning by Homeland Security Secretary Tom Ridge. Ridge and other counterterrorism officials concede they have no intel about any specific plots. But the success of March's Madrid railway bombings in influencing the Spanish elections—as well as intercepted "chatter" among Qaeda operatives—has led analysts to conclude "they want to interfere with the elections," says one official.
As a result, sources tell NEWSWEEK, Ridge's department last week asked the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to analyze what legal steps would be needed to permit the postponement of the election were an attack to take place. Justice was specifically asked to review a recent letter to Ridge from DeForest B. Soaries Jr., chairman of the newly created U.S. Election Assistance Commission. Soaries noted that, while a primary election in New York on September 11, 2001, was quickly suspended by that state's Board of Elections after the attacks that morning, "the federal government has no agency that has the statutory authority to cancel and reschedule a federal election." Soaries, a Bush appointee who two years ago was an unsuccessful GOP candidate for Congress, wants Ridge to seek emergency legislation from Congress empowering his agency to make such a call. Homeland officials say that as drastic as such proposals sound, they are taking them seriously—along with other possible contingency plans in the event of an election-eve or Election Day attack. "We are reviewing the issue to determine what steps need to be taken to secure the election," says Brian Roehrkasse, a Homeland spokesman.
What is our ministry of peace up to here? Isn't it a little suspect to have a member of an admistration that could be ousted by the election put in charge of a council that would determine wether the election should be postponed or not. Who knows maybe the elelection will have to be postponed due to the "WMD'S" hidden in the polling booths.
|
kimcheeboi
Joined: Dec 19, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Abducted by hot blondes to Les
PM |
Quote:
|
What is our ministry of peace up to here?
|
|
 sounds like something right out of 1984 
[addsig] |
Sammy_boy
Joined: Mar 31, 2004
Posts: > 500
From: Staffordshire, United Kingdom
PM, WWW
|
@Patrick-
I'm counting too! Let's see if we can get that number up to double figues eh, @axxxr and @patrick!
I might bow out of this argument a little now - I haven't time I'm afraid to find articles to back up my argument - I should be spending that time researching my nursing assignments! Not that I am at the moment anyway.....
I'd hate to be on wap following this discussion - looking at the length of some replies it must really confuse something like a T610 or a T230!!! 
_________________
"All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men to do nothing" - Edmund Burke
My Ebay Auctions -Nokia 3100 FS
[ This Message was edited by: Sammy_boy on 2004-07-27 00:13 ] |
friscosjoke
Joined: Jul 11, 2004
Posts: 100
From: my mommy's tummy.
PM |
@kim it is out of 1984 not that im a "big brother is watching " conspiracy theorist just find it Ironic that a man put in the charge of keeping us safe would put so many in so much danger. |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-26 23:49:24, friscosjoke wrote:
What is our ministry of peace up to here? Isn't it a little suspect to have a member of an admistration that could be ousted by the election put in charge of a council that would determine wether the election should be postponed or not. Who knows maybe the elelection will have to be postponed due to the "WMD'S" hidden in the polling booths.
|
|
If the administration - you know, the people in power right now, who have the right and legal responsibility to run the business of the country - doesn't take steps to ensure that plans are in place to address all contingencies, wouldn't that be a dereliction of duty?
If the administration - you know, the people in power right now, who have the right and legal responsibility to run the business of the country - aren't the people to do this kind of thing as you suggest, then tell us who you think should be doing it and why. Unless you feel this kind of contingency planning is wrong or unnecessary. If you feel that, please say why you think so.
WMD's hidden in the polling places? Hahahaha 
Thanks for that great joke. It was extremely funny!
_________________
Thanks for taking the time to read my post.
[ This Message was edited by: Patrick-in-CA on 2004-07-27 06:47 ] |
Patrick-in-CA
Joined: Jul 21, 2004
Posts: 0
From: Sourhern Oregon, USA
PM |
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 02:43:39, friscosjoke wrote:
@kim it is out of 1984 not that im a "big brother is watching " conspiracy theorist just find it Ironic that a man put in the charge of keeping us safe would put so many in so much danger.
|
|
So ... you suggest not having an election then? That way we avoid any danger, right? I'm a little confused. What are you suggesting be done?
Thanks for taking the time to read my post. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Quote:
|
On 2004-07-27 01:12:00, Sammy_boy wrote:
@Patrick-
I might bow out of this argument a little now - I haven't time I'm afraid to find articles to back up my argument - I should be spending that time researching my nursing assignments! Not that I am at the moment anyway.....
I'd hate to be on wap following this discussion - looking at the length of some replies it must really confuse something like a T610 or a T230!!! |
|
Sammy i agree with you mate!...This argument or debate if you like to call it that is going absolutely nowhere,I have a job to do here.if i spend my precious time arguing over political opinions then i'll never get anything done..looks like patrick is only here to debate political issues.I for one don't have the time for that.Patrick mate why don't forget politics and tell us what your likes and dislikes of mobile phone technology is?are you even a  fan?..or are nokia's your thing?
[addsig] |
lor
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Planet Bob
PM |
I don't need any articles, bush is a b***** and he deserve a fate worst than whatever's comin to him. |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
I think that the majority of us agree that bush is a piece of worthless sh*t.So thats that!...We really do need to move onto other topics now..We could be sitting here argueing till kingdom come and not see eye to eye. 
[addsig] |
lor
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Planet Bob
PM |
There's nothing to argue about actually. Any decent human being knows that he's a piece of dog crap and a b*****. But I know one thing, he has destroyed america. But there'll always be people to support him. And anyone that supports him are just slimballs and piece of crap themselves. I mean, why else would they support someone like that? They probably like what he's doing, they're into everything. Sadist, sickos, weirdos, inhuman, cruel, animals!!!!!
See, I didn't need an article for that.
[ This Message was edited by: lor on 2004-07-27 09:29 ]
[ This Message was edited by: lor on 2004-07-27 09:31 ] |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Well said!!
[addsig] |
lor
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Planet Bob
PM |
So, how's the weather over there? |
axxxr
Joined: Mar 21, 2003
Posts: > 500
From: Londinium
PM, WWW
|
Not bad today actually!...still a little cool for this time of year...where are you at anyway?
[addsig] |
lor
Joined: Mar 07, 2002
Posts: > 500
From: Planet Bob
PM |
Malaysia, at work actually at the moment. The air conditioner is switched off, so it's rather stuffy here atm. I need fresh air. I can't stand it  | |
|
Access the forum with a mobile phone via esato.mobi
|
Posted: 2004-07-26 23:23
