On Thu, 19 Feb 2004 10:47:18 -0500, Brice Yokem <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>It's not simply "my opinion" that there is climate warming and that our
>human processes are partly to blame, the science has been done to show this
>is the case.  That such research is highly politicised by policy makers is
a
>red herring - it's happening whether or not they or anyone else accepts it.
>
>Richard
>
>---------------
>
>Mr Ali -
>
>'Politicized' is the best way to describe 'global warming' policy.
>The fact is NO ONE KNOWS why global warming is occurring.  The concept
>of Carbon Dioxide contributing to it fits the facts very poorly.
>
>There are occurrences of global climate changes far more dramatic
>which have happened before the industrial age, and before even 1%
>of the number of people we have now existed on earth.
>

Mr. Yokem

maybe you should read this article or the original in the New York Times.
Very interesting

Michael

http://www.nytimes.com/2004/02/19/politics/19RESE.html

By JAMES GLANZ   Published: February 19, 2004

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a
statement yesterday asserting that the Bush administration had
systematically distorted scientific fact in the service of policy goals on
the environment, health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home
and abroad.

The sweeping accusations were later discussed in a conference call
organized by the Union of Concerned Scientists, an independent organization
that focuses on technical issues and has often taken stands at odds with
administration policy. On Wednesday, the organization also issued a 38-page
report detailing its accusations.

The two documents accuse the administration of repeatedly censoring and
suppressing reports by its own scientists, stacking advisory committees
with unqualified political appointees, disbanding government panels that
provide unwanted advice and refusing to seek any independent scientific
expertise in some cases.

"Other administrations have, on occasion, engaged in such practices, but
not so systemically nor on so wide a front," the statement from the
scientists said, adding that they believed the administration
had "misrepresented scientific knowledge and misled the public about the
implications of its policies."

Dr. Kurt Gottfried, an emeritus professor of physics at Cornell University
who signed the statement and spoke during the conference call, said the
administration had "engaged in practices that are in conflict with spirit
of science and the scientific method." Dr. Gottfried, who is also chairman
of the board of directors at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said the
administration had a "cavalier attitude towards science" that could place
at risk the basis for the nation's long-term prosperity, health and
military prowess.

Dr. John H. Marburger III, science adviser to President Bush and director
of the Office of Science and Technology Policy at the White House, said it
was important to listen to "the distinguished scientific leadership in this
country." But he said the report consisted of a largely disconnected list
of events that did not make the case for a suppression of good scientific
advice by the administration.

"I think there are incidents where people have got their feathers ruffled,"
Dr. Marburger said. "But I don't think they add up to a big pattern of
disrespect."

"In most cases," he added, "these are not profound actions that were taken
as the result of a policy. They are individual actions that are part of the
normal processes within the agencies."

The science adviser to Mr. Bush's father, Dr. D. Allan Bromley, went
further. "You know perfectly well that it is very clearly a politically
motivated statement," said Dr. Bromley, a physicist at Yale. "The
statements that are there are broad sweeping generalizations for which
there is very little detailed backup."

The scientists denied that they had political motives in releasing the
documents as the 2004 presidential race began to take clear shape. The
report, Dr. Gottfried said, had taken a year to prepare, much longer than
originally planned, and was released as soon as it was ready.

"I don't see it as a partisan issue at all," said Russell Train, who spoke
during the call and served as administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency under Presidents Richard M. Nixon and Gerald R. Ford. "If it becomes
that way I think it's because the White House chooses to make it a partisan
issue."

The letter was signed by luminaries from an array of disciplines. Among the
Nobel winners are David Baltimore and Harold Varmus, both biomedical
researchers, and Leon M. Lederman, Norman F. Ramsey and Steven Weinberg,
who are physicists. The full list of signatories and the union's report can
be found at www.ucsusa.org.

Aside from some new interviews with current and former government
scientists, some identified in the report and others quoted anonymously,
most of the information in the documents had been reported previously by a
variety of major newspapers, magazines, scientific journals and
nongovernmental organizations.

According to the report, the Bush administration has misrepresented
scientific consensus on global warming, censored at least one report on
climate change, manipulated scientific findings on the emissions of mercury
from power plants and suppressed information on condom use.

The report asserts that the administration also allowed industries with
conflicts of interest to influence technical advisory committees, disbanded
for political reasons one panel on arms control and subjected other
prospective members of scientific panels to political litmus tests.

Dr. Marburger said he was unconvinced by the report's description of those
incidents. "I don't think it makes the case for the sweeping accusations
that it makes," he said.

But Dr. Sidney Drell, an emeritus professor of physics at Stanford and a
senior fellow at the Hoover Institution who was not a signatory to the
statement, said the overall findings rang true to him.

"I am concerned that the scientific advice coming into this administration
seems to me very narrow," said Dr. Drell, who has advised the government on
issues of national security for some 40 years and has served in Democratic
and Republican administrations, including those of Presidents Nixon and
Lyndon B. Johnson. "The input from individuals whose views are not in the
main line of their policy don't seem to be sought or welcomed," he said.

* To join/leave the list, search archives, change list settings, *
* etc., please visit http://raven.utc.edu/archives/hp3000-l.html *