A Response To: "Enviros Commence Election-Year Attack"
Read This First --------> Editorial Link
Steven,
You are arguing your case by begging the question. You want to reveal "Junk Science" then argue that policy experts are better qualified to argue points about science when compared to Nobel Laureates. What? First and foremost, in order to be any type of scientist, at least in the hard sciences, you have to have a pretty well rounded background in both scientific theory and general knowledge of all the hard sciences. Furthermore, there are many similarities shared amongst the hard sciences that make crossover knowledge common.
Then, you argue using facts that are taken out of context or not fully described as to show how they contextually relate.
EXAMPLE:
"The UCS quoted Clinton-era EPA pesticide chief Lynn Goldman as saying, 'The Clinton administration did not do this  They did not exclude people based on some sort of litmus test.' ThatÂs flat-out false. In one instance that comes to mind, the Clinton administration was sued for excluding global warming skeptics from meetings of a federal advisory committee preparing a report on global warming."
Yeah, because virtually EVERY reputable scientific community agrees that Global Warming is happening and that the science behind it is pretty compelling. Most in the community don't disagree on whether it's a problem, but to what extent. I'm sorry, but if 90% of any community is in agreement, there is little need or benefit from including opinions from the other 10%. (A way of doing business that this administration has a wealth of experience.) Scientific theory and empirical science insists that all theories are tested anyway, so even the minority opinions and thoughts have a chance to prove themselves. If those that denied the findings of 90% of all scientists could be proved to be better in theory or fact, then they would be accepted on their own merits. That's how science works.
EXAMPLE:
"Moreover, public policy controversies usually involve more than just science; economics, law, politics come to mind; and are quite different from the basic scientific research conducted in an ivory tower. Nobel laureates certainly have the right to opine on public policy issues, but their scientific discoveries don't tend to render their opinions particularly valuable. "
This is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, policy development involves all those things you mentioned, but that's irrelevant if the science behind the policy is being misrepresented or is politicized or just plain wrong. One can make rational decisions if they have accurate information from which to work. However, if that information is false (non-repeatable in the scientific sense) or has been changed as the result of a political agenda, then no amount of honest deliberation or analysis can take place that will produce a policy that reflects what is best for all involved. (For an acute example of the effects of "false knowledge" you need go no further than our determination to invade Iraq, which was based on allegedly bad intelligence. And, if it wasn't bad intelligence, then it was the politicization of the accurate intelligence. Either way, it's the same thing.)
THIS IS WHY THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING CRITICIZED!
These scientists are arguing that the information being given to the policy makers is bad to begin with because it has either been distorted for political purposes or it was produced by a non-independent source that has something to be gained by their results. They are NOT arguing that they know how to best develop policy. However, they do know science and they can speak with authority about the science information being passed to the policy makers. To further exacerbate the already shady situation, you are then passing alledgedly false or distorted information to a board of "advisors" who have an agenda of their own that is created and marketed by the very same people producing the shady science. To make it even worse, these advisors are operating in a closed atmosphere where the public is not allowed to know who is doing the policy analysis and creation. I'm sorry, but that is ethically troubling on its face. This coming from an administration that ran its campaign, at least partially, on its ethics. Easy to be ethical when no one knows who your dealing with.
So, if there is a empirical question to the validity of any argument or scientific finding, then wouldn't it be best to err on the side of protection and not money making? If the science is proved to be wrong, we're out a few dollars but people are at least as healthy as they were before. But, if they are right and ignored, then what do we have then? Lastly, what do the scientists have to gain from being right? Even if it means their experiments will get some sort of funding, that hardly translates to great riches for them (but it does fund academic research and a few jobs for graduate students). If they are right, we all benefit in the long run. On the flip side, what do the big corporations have to gain from getting what they want? Yeah, a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY; very little of which is translated into high paying jobs for the common worker, but translates to high payoffs for stock holders, executives and those that lobby for them. And, at what cost to the long term health of our citizens and the environmental viability of our natural resources?
Let's face it, the Bush administration cannot develop and implement policy in line with its agenda unless the science that is in opposition to their agenda is found to be untrue or is cast in enough doubt as to make it unworthy of the public's attention. If the science is true or at least reasonably accurate, then the policies are seen for what they are; policies meant to benefit special interests groups or big corporations with short-term economic interests. Implementation of such policies will be at the expense of the everyday man's health and long-term future. Even someone politically niave would be able to see this. This is why you and those of your ilk attack the messenger and not the message. The message stands the test of scrutiny, scientific scrutiny, and therefore the only recourse is to label science that doesn't have a .05 confidence level as "Junk Science" and to label those that support any science contrary to the prevailing agenda as "Liberal Environmental Activists". That's just sad.
I would expect better reasoning from someone of your stature and employment.
Read This First --------> Editorial Link
Steven,
You are arguing your case by begging the question. You want to reveal "Junk Science" then argue that policy experts are better qualified to argue points about science when compared to Nobel Laureates. What? First and foremost, in order to be any type of scientist, at least in the hard sciences, you have to have a pretty well rounded background in both scientific theory and general knowledge of all the hard sciences. Furthermore, there are many similarities shared amongst the hard sciences that make crossover knowledge common.
Then, you argue using facts that are taken out of context or not fully described as to show how they contextually relate.
EXAMPLE:
"The UCS quoted Clinton-era EPA pesticide chief Lynn Goldman as saying, 'The Clinton administration did not do this  They did not exclude people based on some sort of litmus test.' ThatÂs flat-out false. In one instance that comes to mind, the Clinton administration was sued for excluding global warming skeptics from meetings of a federal advisory committee preparing a report on global warming."
Yeah, because virtually EVERY reputable scientific community agrees that Global Warming is happening and that the science behind it is pretty compelling. Most in the community don't disagree on whether it's a problem, but to what extent. I'm sorry, but if 90% of any community is in agreement, there is little need or benefit from including opinions from the other 10%. (A way of doing business that this administration has a wealth of experience.) Scientific theory and empirical science insists that all theories are tested anyway, so even the minority opinions and thoughts have a chance to prove themselves. If those that denied the findings of 90% of all scientists could be proved to be better in theory or fact, then they would be accepted on their own merits. That's how science works.
EXAMPLE:
"Moreover, public policy controversies usually involve more than just science; economics, law, politics come to mind; and are quite different from the basic scientific research conducted in an ivory tower. Nobel laureates certainly have the right to opine on public policy issues, but their scientific discoveries don't tend to render their opinions particularly valuable. "
This is comparing apples to oranges. Yes, policy development involves all those things you mentioned, but that's irrelevant if the science behind the policy is being misrepresented or is politicized or just plain wrong. One can make rational decisions if they have accurate information from which to work. However, if that information is false (non-repeatable in the scientific sense) or has been changed as the result of a political agenda, then no amount of honest deliberation or analysis can take place that will produce a policy that reflects what is best for all involved. (For an acute example of the effects of "false knowledge" you need go no further than our determination to invade Iraq, which was based on allegedly bad intelligence. And, if it wasn't bad intelligence, then it was the politicization of the accurate intelligence. Either way, it's the same thing.)
THIS IS WHY THE ADMINISTRATION IS BEING CRITICIZED!
These scientists are arguing that the information being given to the policy makers is bad to begin with because it has either been distorted for political purposes or it was produced by a non-independent source that has something to be gained by their results. They are NOT arguing that they know how to best develop policy. However, they do know science and they can speak with authority about the science information being passed to the policy makers. To further exacerbate the already shady situation, you are then passing alledgedly false or distorted information to a board of "advisors" who have an agenda of their own that is created and marketed by the very same people producing the shady science. To make it even worse, these advisors are operating in a closed atmosphere where the public is not allowed to know who is doing the policy analysis and creation. I'm sorry, but that is ethically troubling on its face. This coming from an administration that ran its campaign, at least partially, on its ethics. Easy to be ethical when no one knows who your dealing with.
So, if there is a empirical question to the validity of any argument or scientific finding, then wouldn't it be best to err on the side of protection and not money making? If the science is proved to be wrong, we're out a few dollars but people are at least as healthy as they were before. But, if they are right and ignored, then what do we have then? Lastly, what do the scientists have to gain from being right? Even if it means their experiments will get some sort of funding, that hardly translates to great riches for them (but it does fund academic research and a few jobs for graduate students). If they are right, we all benefit in the long run. On the flip side, what do the big corporations have to gain from getting what they want? Yeah, a WHOLE LOT OF MONEY; very little of which is translated into high paying jobs for the common worker, but translates to high payoffs for stock holders, executives and those that lobby for them. And, at what cost to the long term health of our citizens and the environmental viability of our natural resources?
Let's face it, the Bush administration cannot develop and implement policy in line with its agenda unless the science that is in opposition to their agenda is found to be untrue or is cast in enough doubt as to make it unworthy of the public's attention. If the science is true or at least reasonably accurate, then the policies are seen for what they are; policies meant to benefit special interests groups or big corporations with short-term economic interests. Implementation of such policies will be at the expense of the everyday man's health and long-term future. Even someone politically niave would be able to see this. This is why you and those of your ilk attack the messenger and not the message. The message stands the test of scrutiny, scientific scrutiny, and therefore the only recourse is to label science that doesn't have a .05 confidence level as "Junk Science" and to label those that support any science contrary to the prevailing agenda as "Liberal Environmental Activists". That's just sad.
I would expect better reasoning from someone of your stature and employment.
posted by Mike at 3:33 PM
0 comments
