EPA scientists complain about political pressure.

Hundreds of Environmental Protection Agency scientists complain they have been victims of political interference and pressure from superiors to skew their findings, according to a survey released Wednesday by ...

[Bob]

Why am I not surprised??

Does anyone believe that policy is being set in accordance with what is best for the country? For Americans? Is there anyone out there that naive?

We are a capitalistic society. Money talks. The EPA scientists can analyze their heads off but in the final analysis it is how the special interest groups and the lobbyists pay our honorable legislators that will determine the way we will head.

Look at big oil.
Look at big pharmaceutical companies.
Look at the "big 3" auto industry.

Look at where this country is because of them.

Democracy without morality does not work.

[mememine69]

Bob wrote:

Why am I not surprised??
Does anyone believe that policy is being set in accordance with what is best for the country? For Americans? Is there anyone out there that naive?
We are a capitalistic society. Money talks. The EPA scientists can analyze their heads off but in the final analysis it is how the special interest groups and the lobbyists pay our honorable legislators that will determine the way we will head.
Look at big oil.
Look at big pharmaceutical companies.
Look at the "big 3" auto industry.
Look at where this country is because of them.
Democracy without morality does not work.

Unlike you, I like success and admire those who are. 70% of Americans own and mortgage their own homes and 97.6 % of the population is NOT homeless. We are living longer than at any time in history.
I’m not going to believe politicians, corporate media and paid consultants posing as “scientists” after 25 years of them predicting doom based on their premise that man is stronger than nature.
History will laugh this green version of the DaVinci Code.

[NewYorkJ]

Details:

http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scient...

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/in...

[The Respected Doofinator]

This is crap.

The Union of Concerned Scientist is a leftist operated political advocacy organization.

Politicization of the EPA was rife under Bill Clinton's EPA Director Carol Browner, who was a LAWYER and not a scientist.

Under Browner's tenure, research that did not support the administrations global warming beliefs was suppressed and non-supportive research reports were ordered shredded.

The Respected Doofinator

[theworldasweknow it]

NewYorkJ wrote:

Details:
http://www.ucsusa.org/assets/documents/scient...
http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/in...

union of concerned scientists

Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists has been a prime beneficiary of Environmental Media Services (EMS) and its slick PR work. UCS often participates in press conferences organized by EMS, including those on highly politicized issues like the nomination of Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior, the Kyoto “global warming” treaty, and President George W. Bush’s energy plan. UCS “experts” are commonly quoted in EMS press releases. And EMS is also a driving force behind the Genetic Engineering Action Network, of which UCS is a charter member.

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_over...

UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses
their radical agenda.

http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

[theworldasweknow it]

http://www.activistcash.com/organization_over...

Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

[mememine69]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

This is crap.
The Union of Concerned Scientist is a leftist operated political advocacy organization.
Politicization of the EPA was rife under Bill Clinton's EPA Director Carol Browner, who was a LAWYER and not a scientist.
Under Browner's tenure, research that did not support the administrations global warming beliefs was suppressed and non-supportive research reports were ordered shredded.
The Respected Doofinator

Hey hey hey. I'm a member don't forget. Easy!

[Glasnos]

, EPA spokesman Shradar said, "We have the best scientists in the world at EPA."

That statement alone should be enough to impune the integrety of anything coming from the EPA.
It's laughable.

[The Truth Matters]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

This is crap.
The Union of Concerned Scientist is a leftist operated political advocacy organization.
Politicization of the EPA was rife under Bill Clinton's EPA Director Carol Browner, who was a LAWYER and not a scientist.
Under Browner's tenure, research that did not support the administrations global warming beliefs was suppressed and non-supportive research reports were ordered shredded.
The Respected Doofinator

And those same political hacks at the EPA stayed on after GWB got into office because he didn't bother to sack them like Bill Clinton did when he got into office.

[theworldasweknow it]

mememine69 wrote:

<quoted text>
Hey hey hey. I'm a member don't forget. Easy!

yeah but you joined just to show how irrelevant the organisation is

[NewYorkJ]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

http://www.activistcash.com/or ganization_overview.cfm/oid/14 5
Here’s how it works: UCS conducts an opinion poll of scientists or organizes a petition that scientists sign. Then it manipulates or misconstrues the results in order to pronounce that science has spoken. In 1986 UCS asked 549 of the American Physical Society’s 37,000 members if Ronald Reagan’s Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI) was “a step in the wrong direction for America’s national security policy.” Despite the biased wording of the push-poll question, only 54 percent disapproved of SDI. Even so, UCS declared that the poll proved “profound and pervasive skepticism toward SDI in the scientific community.”

It's always amusing how industry activist organizations accuse other organizations of being biased. "activistcash.com ":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consu...

[theworldasweknow it]

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
It's always amusing how industry activist organizations accuse other organizations of being biased. "activistcash.com ":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Center_for_Consu...

and interesting how biased and manipulated wikipedia is;

http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-clima...

[NewYorkJ]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
and interesting how biased and manipulated wikipedia is;
http://icecap.us/index.php/go/political-clima...

ICECAP=Another denier site. They are a dime a dozen.

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

[The Respected Doofinator]

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
ICECAP=Another denier site. They are a dime a dozen.

Well, if there are SO MANY "denier sites", how can warming quacks claim that there is an "overwhelming consensus" on human caused global warming?

GOTCHA!

The Respected Doofinator

[The Respected Doofinator]

theworldasweknowit wrote:

<quoted text>
union of concerned scientists
Union of Concerned Scientists
The Union of Concerned Scientists has been a prime beneficiary of Environmental Media Services (EMS) and its slick PR work. UCS often participates in press conferences organized by EMS, including those on highly politicized issues like the nomination of Gail Norton as Secretary of the Interior, the Kyoto “global warming” treaty, and President George W. Bush’s energy plan. UCS “experts” are commonly quoted in EMS press releases. And EMS is also a driving force behind the Genetic Engineering Action Network, of which UCS is a charter member.
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_over...
UCS embraces an environmental agenda that often stands at odds with the “rigorous scientific analysis” it claims to employ. A radical green wolf in sheep’s clothing, UCS tries to distinguish itself from the Greenpeaces of the world by convincing the media that its recommendations reflect a consensus among the scientific community. And that’s what makes it so dangerous. Whether it’s energy policy or agricultural issues, UCS’s “experts” are routinely given a free pass from newspaper reporters and television producers when they claim that mainstream science endorses
their radical agenda.
http://www.topix.net/forum/news/global-warmin...

AHA!! The old Al Gore gang!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Me...

"Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues". EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s."

And the George Soros connection:

"EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications[3][4], "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS."

http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/the_re...

"Fenton Communications, itself a touchstone for radical political campaigns, made use of the Tides Center to set up its Environmental Media Services (EMS) in 1994 (it has also since emerged from under Tides' protection and formally set up shop in Fenton's offices). The fact that Tides originally ran EMS' day—to—day operations provided PR spinmeister David Fenton with 'plausible deniability'—— a ready—made alibi against charges that this supposedly 'nonpartisan' media outfit was just a shill for his paying clients. Now, of course, we all know that it is just that."

http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx...

"Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center;"

The Respected Doofinator

[NewYorkJ]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, if there are SO MANY "denier sites", how can warming quacks claim that there is an "overwhelming consensus" on human caused global warming?
GOTCHA!
The Respected Doofinator

Scientific consensus is quite different from public consensus. There are also many sites claiming 9/11 was an inside job and dozens of tabloid publications and claim a variety of things. Denier sites tend to be along those lines.

[The Truth Matters]

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
ICECAP=Another denier site. They are a dime a dozen.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php...

SourceWatch=Another left-wing smear site. They are a dime a dozen.

[theworldasweknow it]

NewYorkJ wrote:

<quoted text>
Scientific consensus is quite different from public consensus. There are also many sites claiming 9/11 was an inside job and dozens of tabloid publications and claim a variety of things. Denier sites tend to be along those lines.

gee what about climate audit - theyve shown the hockey stick to be crap and most of NASAs and Hansens figures to be fudged

or try surface station for an update on surface crap and how the recorders cant even get it right and how at least half the claimed warmth was illusionary

and then see people like yourself - paid lemmings like those on wikipedia trying to distort the science and the facts

[theworldasweknow it]

The Respected Doofinator wrote:

<quoted text>
AHA!! The old Al Gore gang!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_Me...
"Environmental Media Services (EMS) is a Washington, D.C. based nonprofit organization that is "dedicated to expanding media coverage of critical environmental and public health issues". EMS was founded in 1994 by Arlie Schardt, a former journalist, former communications director for Al Gore's 2000 Presidential campaign, and former head of the Environmental Defense Fund during the 1970s."
And the George Soros connection:
"EMS is closely allied with Fenton Communications[3][4], "the largest public interest communications firm in the [United States]"[5], which specializes in providing public relations for nonprofit organizations dealing with public policy issues. The Washington branch of Fenton shares the same address as EMS."
http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/10/the_re...
"Fenton Communications, itself a touchstone for radical political campaigns, made use of the Tides Center to set up its Environmental Media Services (EMS) in 1994 (it has also since emerged from under Tides' protection and formally set up shop in Fenton's offices). The fact that Tides originally ran EMS' day—to—day operations provided PR spinmeister David Fenton with 'plausible deniability'—— a ready—made alibi against charges that this supposedly 'nonpartisan' media outfit was just a shill for his paying clients. Now, of course, we all know that it is just that."
http://frontpagemag.com/articles/Read.aspx...
"Teresa Heinz Kerry, George Soros, Bill Moyers and the Ford Foundation fund the Tides Foundation/Center;"
The Respected Doofinator

yeah it all makes sense finally doesnt it - at the end of the day just follow the money trail - green bucks gore has been laughing all the way to the bank

[scientistLVH]

Reading the comments by the 'Doofinator' and his buddies above is enough to make one sick. A bunch of know nothings self referencing one another to 'prove' stuff is true by discrediting any scientific finding or argument without presenting any verifiable information. I have seen drafts of documents submitted by EPA scientists warning of severe consequenses of fossil fuel burning based on hard scientific data, and the administration flunkies edited it to nothingness. Changing statements of high probability events (no scientist will predict ANYTHING with 100% uncertainty) to suggestions that maybe something was possible. Exactly reversing the sense of the argument. So, after arguing that more scientific evidence was required before any response to global warming could be initiated, they change the evidence from scientists that global warming is a really serious problem requiring immediate action, into a suggestion that maybe there will be a problem sometime in the future.

Thanks a lot.