Today's New York Times Magazine features an interview with NASA scientist, Drew Shindell. He has testified before Congress regarding the Bush administration's attempts to prevent him from releasing info on global warming. He says they edited his reports and press releases to be intentionally misleading. Why would they do this?
2007-02-18 07:47:28 · 19 answers · asked by HarryTikos 4 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
It's a systematic attack on scientific freedom. The consequences of this blatant ignorance of science and the scientific method will be felt for years to come.
2007-02-18 07:55:07 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋
I attended a house hearing that Drew Shindell testified along with 3 other people. All three of the witnesses that were testifying that the Bush administration did this were not very convincing. The first, a scientist who did a study, had only a 19% response rate on her study, which therefore has a very significant low-reponse bias and is basically worthless. Then Schindell and the other guy had some problems as well. One of the two, and I thought it was Schindell but may be mistaken, is not actually even a scientist. Rather he worked as basically an editor and was mad because people were then editing what he edited, people who werent climate change scientist so they had no right to touch it (he didn't mention that he was also not a scientist until he was questioned....basically he was just ticked because they didn't like the job he did, it was a total joke)
Another witness testified that the Bush administration probably is trying to get scientists to say what they want LIKE EVERY OTHER adminstration always had (he had some good examples of many past President's that did this including Clinton)
2007-02-18 08:02:10 · answer #2 · answered by Josh S 1 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Because he thinks that the polar caps melting at an unprecedented rate are just caused by penguins brewing coffee. That and the fact that his family are on a quest to wipe out as much of the world's population as they can. The powers that be have calculated that they can weather the storm. (That's why CEO's and company Executives are rushing to take survival classes.) When the masses are exterminated, then they will come out of their hidden bunkers and reclaim the land. They know that they will make huge profits by their action. (That's the reason Social Security is such a thorn in their side. It stops old people from losing their homes and property. The money managers can't buy the property of the old for pennies on the dollar.) What ever the load will bare is the motto of the Bushite's.
2016-05-24 03:29:42 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Just because one person says a thing, does not mean that is the truth.
Perhaps the truth is that Shindell was editorializing himself, and making conclusions that the data did not warrant.
You see, there are many, many scientists who disagree with the Al Gore global warming scare, and consider it to be poor science and, worst of all, political propaganda.
The truth of the matter is there is NO scientific consensus on whether the current warming trend has any human component.
Perhaps if the global warming dogmatists would see open scientific debate instead of trying to silence their critics, it would better serve people. Anybody who is against open scientific debate is the true silencer of scientists.
2007-02-18 08:12:47 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Because scientist are bias.They get paid from grants,if there is no crisis there is no money.Global warming happened in the past and it will happen in the future.Three volcano's put out more pollution than all of the pollution of mankind since the beginning of mankind.Global warming is not a crisis , out of control liberalism is.
2007-02-18 09:05:03 · answer #5 · answered by shawnn 4 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Hes not the only one complaining about political interference in science. This has been an open complaint about the Bush administration, and has led to several people leaving. Not just global warming, but the success of his abstinence programs and of course the intel that led to the war, has also been altered. Bush changes what he doesn't like, an intellectually challenged response to factual matters that go against his evangelical faith. Its only one reason I have no trust in what comes out of his mouth.
2007-02-18 07:57:36 · answer #6 · answered by justa 7 · 4⤊ 3⤋
First blaming Bush for everything is getting old. Secondly maybe its because his administration has taken the position that global warming is not man made. Which is the correct one by the way. When your side is in office you can do the same. Bush is not "silencing" anyone. This happens in every Presidency.
2007-02-18 07:55:39 · answer #7 · answered by Chester's Liver 2 · 2⤊ 4⤋
They did the same with the C.I.A and all the people that told Bush there wasn't any evidence of WMD's in Iraq. If you are not on the same brain waves as Bush you're silenced. Unless the task is too big like for the majority of America.
2007-02-18 07:55:46 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 3⤋
Because if they have to admit that Global Warming is a serious & very dangerous problem then they'll have to do something about it and doing something about it means cutting down the use of fossil fuels and since fossil fuels keep the US economy strong and thus make the US a super power if someone were to significantly cut fossil fuel emissions in American US businesses would lose billions and that would really hurt the US.
2007-02-18 07:55:08 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 4⤋
Oil is the big contributor to Bush and the global warming. Exon had the largest earnings last year of any company anywhere ever.
2007-02-18 07:56:52 · answer #10 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 3⤋
Because the Bush government wants to defuse the basis of the public's increasing concern about Global warming. That concern will eventually cost business, and big business employs Bush. He's their President... their puppet President.
He's not America's President, and he never was.
2007-02-18 07:56:34 · answer #11 · answered by Anonymous · 2⤊ 4⤋