Moon Enviro Sci for Art, Tango

--- In ssi_list@... "Valens Agnitio"
>
> So who is misrepresenting the science, the Bush administration or
> its political opponents?

Despite the spinning of the report I surely wouldn't put the Bush
Administration up as the poster-child for scientific integrity.
Wanting to have industry scientists vet proposals was the sign of
chutzpah.

> The doublespeak surely comes from those who claim reports say one
> thing when the text says another.

I agree with Crichton's original assessment that there was political
spinning going on with the IPCC summary. It was overreach. However,
the fact that Bush questioned the scientific foundations certainly
had nothing to do with respect for sound science methodology, and
more to do with favoring political ideologies. They caught a lucky
break in the confluence of the two situations and are using one to
disguise the other.

> Far from making the policy choice first, in the area of global
> warming the administration seeks a careful review of the actual
> science, not just a brief reading of an unsatisfactory summary."

Talk about spinning! My, oh my. The Adminsitration has shown its
cards too many times for me to take them seriously on this
statement. I can't believe that they would be in favor of Kyoto, or
even the Convergence Treaty, even if the science was
methodologically sound and beyond dispute. Even on matters that are
known to be beyond dispute, the Administration obfuscates.

I'm simply left with the belief that people are prone to go beyond
evidence quite frequently. Right now I'm engaged in a debate with
rabid free-traders who can't see that their belief in their
economics goes beyond the evidence and theory. They're just like the
rabid environmentalists, in that they take some good science and
evidence and then on faith make propositions that are unsupportable.
It's just as difficult to get through to the free-traders as the
environmentalists.

Thanks for the heads-up on this article. It was interesting.

TangoMan