Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

[Sava]

some specifics:

a litmus test interview of appointees

In 2002, Dr. William R. Miller, a professor of psychology and psychiatry at University of New Mexico, was invited to join the National Advisory Council on Drug Abuse. This advisory committee guides policy and funding on drug abuse at NIH. Before Dr. Miller could be appointed, however, an official from Secretary Thompson’s office called him to ask several questions. These questions included whether he was sympathetic to faith-based initiatives, whether he supported abortion rights, whether he supported the death penalty for drug kingpins, and whether he had voted for President Bush.

page 28 of the report

how about an unqualified ideological appointee?

In 2002, HHS impeded its ability to obtain objective scientific advice in women’s health by nominating Dr. W. David Hager, a conservative religious activist, to chair the FDA’s Reproductive Health Drugs Advisory Committee. The committee is charged with evaluating the safety and effectiveness of drugs for obstetrics, gynecology, and related specialties.135 In the past, FDA has chosen for this important position highly respected members of the scientific community with strong credentials in the field of reproductive health. Dr. Hager’s principal experience for the position appeared to be his lobbying for a
renewed safety review of the approved drug RU-486, an abortifacient, even though no significant new evidence called its safety into question. The Lancet described his “track record” as a researcher as “sparse.”136 Dr. Hager’s major publications are medical books imbued with religious themes, such as offering advice that women who suffer from premenstrual syndrome should pray and read the bible. Although ultimately not appointed chair, Dr. Hager is now a member
of the committee.

page 26 of the report

do I need to post more for you lazy ppl out there?

it's all in the report.

Hopefully this will be enough specific proof for the Bush-apologists out there.

[Dauphin]

Wha? The scientists have no control over the NYTs jounalists and editor. So how can you hold them accountable?

Its like blaming Bush for bad editing or reporting of his speeches by CNN, BBC or whoever..

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


Now that is just flat out mean.

heheh just giving him a little crap... it's all in good fun

[Sava]

how about some flat out manipulation of data on behalf of Cheney's Halliburton?

The Bush Administration has changed scientific data or suppressed scientific information to favor an oil and gas practice called “hydraulic fracturing.” The leading provider of hydraulic fracturing is the energy company Halliburton, previously led by Vice President Cheney. According to the company’s web site, “Halliburton pioneered fracturing . . . and has consistently led in the technology.”122

In carrying out hydraulic fracturing, companies sometimes inject fracturing fluids containing benzene and other carcinogenic and toxic chemicals into geologic formations containing underground sources of drinking water.123 In the fall of 2002, EPA officials briefed congressional staff on an August 2002 draft agency study on this issue. The data in the study indicated that hydraulic fracturing could lead to benzene in underground sources of drinking water at levels above federal drinking water standards.124

After congressional staff raised concerns about these about these environmental impacts, EPA changed the data. One week after discussing these results with congressional staff, EPA officials produced revised data indicating that benzene levels would not exceed government standards.125

EPA gave no scientific justification for the change, explaining that it was “based on feedback” from an industry source.126

the numbers are sources within the report.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
some specifics:

a litmus test interview of appointees
page 28 of the report

how about an unqualified ideological appointee?
page 26 of the report

do I need to post more for you lazy ppl out there?

it's all in the report.

Hopefully this will be enough specific proof for the Bush-apologists out there.

I didn't review your site yet, am I getting this right though, you are not b!tching about technical things like global warming only about questions being asked by Tommy Thompson's aid, kind of like a soap opera?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


I didn't review your site yet, am I getting this right though, you are not b!tching about technical things like global warming only about questions being asked by Tommy Thompson's aid, kind of like a soap opera?

I am giving specific examples of what the NYTimes article had.

I am cutting and pasting specific examples of all the things the scientists have accused the Bush admin of doing.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
how about some flat out manipulation of data on behalf of Cheney's Halliburton?

the numbers are sources within the report.

Now that article is over my head, can a scientist here, diplomat, tell me what the hell the EPA did and is it considered standard and/or are the level fine, because I honestly do not know.

[Sava]

After abrogating the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty, President Bush ordered the deployment of a missile defense system by 2004.114

In making the case for missile defense, however, leading Defense Department officials have distorted scientific evidence on the feasibility of such a system. In 2002 and 2003, General Ronald Kadish, head of the Pentagon’s Missile Defense Agency, said that the Pentagon would complete a test facility in Alaska by the end of 2004.115

Deputy Defense Secretary Paul Wolfowitz told a Senate Appropriations Committee that prototype interceptors able to shoot down enemy
missiles would be in place at the facility by September 2004.116 Most
dramatically, Under Secretary of Defense Edward Aldridge told a Senate panel that by the end of 2004, the system would be 90% effective in intercepting missiles from the Korean peninsula.117

Leading independent experts have reported that these claims are unjustified. Philip Coyle, former director of the Office of Operational Test and Evaluation at the Pentagon, has reported that a missile defense system was “at least a decade” from completion.118 The editors of Scientific American have said, “Regarding missile defense, researchers’ best guess is that a reliable system is infeasible.”119

In April 2003, GAO found the President’s plan unworkable and even
dangerous.120

more distortion and manipulation of data... page 23 of the report

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
I am giving specific examples of what the NYTimes article had.

I am cutting and pasting specific examples of all the things the scientists have accused the Bush admin of doing.

This is from the NYT, I won't qualify any of their prints, talk about biased.
Are you giving us parts of the 37 pages or someone's viewpoint of it like the NYT?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


This is from the NYT, I won't qualify any of their prints, talk about biased.
Are you giving us parts of the 37 pages or someone's viewpoint of it like the NYT?

This is from the CONGRESSIONAL REPORT! not the NYTimes... are you going to acknowledge the truth now? or continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "they are biased OMFG"?

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
more distortion and manipulation of data... page 23 of the report

What is not feasible, money costs to complete it or being able to actually do it? I just saw on the Discover Station that soon we will be able to shoot down incoming missiles from a specially equipped 747 with a laser, they didn't seem to think that form of defense was not feasible, I don't know how that relates to the missile on missile defense.
Here is my point, how do you know that Reagan some 20 odd years ago didn't help the technology on the laser equipped 747 from his star wars project. There are off set things that get started even if the main event doesn't or goes a different direction.

[chequita guevara]

Originally posted by Defiant
Now that article is over my head, can a scientist here, diplomat, tell me what the hell the EPA did and is it considered standard and/or are the level fine, because I honestly do not know.

It's pretty straight forward. The Administration altered data to favour a pactice of oil drilling which carries a hazard of polluting drinking water supplies with benzene, a very dangerous chemical. "The leading provider of hydraulic fracturing is the energy company Halliburton" The EPA altered a report to say that the practice won't pollute drinking water more than Federal guidlines allow.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
This is from the CONGRESSIONAL REPORT! not the NYTimes... are you going to acknowledge the truth now? or continue to stick your fingers in your ears and yell "they are biased OMFG"?

What did I tell you, I would like to see other scientiest examine this data and agree or disagree, I said that from the beginning, some of this stuff, like the EPA item, is over my head.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant
What is not feasible, money costs to complete it or being able to actually do it? I just saw on the Discover Station that soon we will be able to shoot down incoming missiles from a specially equipped 747 with a laser, they didn't seem to think that form of defense was not feasible, I don't know how that relates to the missile on missile defense.
Here is my point, how do you know that Reagan some 20 odd years ago didn't help the technology on the laser equipped 747 from his star wars project. There are off set things that get started even if the main event doesn't or goes a different direction.

What does this have to do with the Bush administrations PROVEN distortion and manipulation of data?

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant
What did I tell you, I would like to see other scientiest examine this data and agree or disagree, I said that from the beginning, some of this stuff, like the EPA item, is over my head.

then find what you are looking for... but don't sit here and give me the same old bush apologist BS when I've presented PROOF of my point.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's pretty straight forward. The Administration altered data to favour a pactice of oil drilling which carries a hazard of polluting drinking water supplies with benzene, a very dangerous chemical. "The leading provider of hydraulic fracturing is the energy company Halliburton" The EPA altered a report to say that the practice won't pollute drinking water more than Federal guidlines allow.

Plain and simple would the drilling stay within Federal guidlines? That should be easy enough to check out, shouldn't it. How many parts per million is dangerous or not.

[Agathon]

It's no surprise. This administration has been in fundamentalist disagreement with reality from day one.

Someone said that the usual method is to proceed from evidence to theory, Bush does just the opposite - if it doesn't fit his theory evidence be damned.

Here's hoping the good citizens of the USA do the right thing and get rid of these losers.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Defiant


Plain and simple would the drilling stay within Federal guidlines? That should be easy enough to check out, shouldn't it. How many parts per million is dangerous or not.

The EPA report said it wouldn't. Then after going before congressional staff, they said it would.

It appears not so plain and simple.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


The EPA report said it wouldn't. Then after going before congressional staff, they said it would.

It appears not so plain and simple.

Agreed, but what, technically, is the right answer, if the EPA changed it for a scientific reason, it would appear legit, if they changed to a number that all scientists would say is bullsh!t, then you have a point, that is why I am asking the question.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


Agreed, but what, technically, is the right answer, if the EPA changed it for a scientific reason, it would appear legit, if they changed to a number that all scientists would say is bullsh!t, then you have a point, that is why I am asking the question.

the Bush admin manipulated the data...

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
What does this have to do with the Bush administrations PROVEN distortion and manipulation of data?

given 10-20 interceptors with the current test success rate(5/8 even though they know the issues that lead to the failure of the three), we could stop definately stop a few missiles from NK. Notice that Wolfowitz said 90% success rate vs total completion of the system mentioned by said expert. by the end of the year we will have a few interceptors and much of the radar we will need in place, it has all been tested.

Also you won't win browny points with RU-486 being stopped for testing, this drug has killed people(not including those it was intended to kill of course).

[Defiant]

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/

January 27, 2004


MISSILE DEFENSE BOOSTER TEST IS SUCCESSFUL


The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today the completion last night of another successful flight test involving a new booster rocket designed to support the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles of the type that could be aimed at any of our 50 states. This was a test of the primary booster to be fielded with the GMD system later this year, and included measurement of booster performance and the participation of an integrated architecture designed to detect and track a target missile, launch the interceptor missile, and provide detailed target identification, tracking and communication to the interceptor missile. No intercept took place, as the target missile was simulated for this test.


Integrated Flight Test -13b (IFT-13b) included the second successful launch of an Orbital Sciences boost vehicle with an instrumented payload (simulated exoatmospheric kill vehicle) from the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, in the central Pacific Ocean.

The booster rocket lifted off last night (Jan. 26) at 9:22 p.m. EST (2:22 p.m. Jan. 27 Kwajalein time), and flew to a simulated intercept point approximately 800 miles downrange and to an altitude of approximately 170 miles above the earth. Initial analysis shows that booster performance was nominal, in that it was within design parameters and that payload separation was successful. Program officials will begin an extensive post-test review to determine precise booster performance parameters.


IFT-13b demonstrated several new system capabilities necessary for the successful operation of the GMD system, including the GMD fire control/communication nodes (GFC/C) located at the Joint National Integration Center (JNIC) in Colorado Springs, Colo. and the Reagan Test Site. The GFC at the Reagan Test Site issued the weapon task plan, which plans and directs the interceptor missile to place it in the path of a target missile to effect a "hit to kill" intercept, using only the force of the direct collision with the missile's warhead to destroy it.


-MORE-



This test also included for the first time participation of military personnel within the Cheyenne Mountain (Colo.) Operations Center and the space-based infrared system test node in Colorado to simulate early warning and tracking information about the simulated target. The In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) at the Reagan Test Site was used to relay target information directly to the interceptor. In an actual intercept test, this would transmit integrated tracking and target location information to the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), which is the interceptor component that actually collides with the target warhead.

Several additional ground and flight tests are planned for this year, including at least two intercept tests. Up to 10 interceptors are planned to be deployed this year at Ft. Greely, Alaska (up to six interceptors) and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (up to four interceptors) to provide a defensive capability against a long-range missile attack on the United States. Up to 10 additional interceptors are planned to be fielded at Ft. Greely by the end of 2005.

Again, I don't know what you mean by not feasible, looks like it is working however, looks like it won't be ready until 2005, not a lie, a miscalculation, or what is wrong with this article.
Test fired on 1-27-04 only a couple of weeks ago.

[Berzerker]

Waddya expect? These are the same people who insist marijuana has no medicinal properties...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Whoha


given 10-20 interceptors with the current test success rate(5/8 even though they know the issues that lead to the failure of the three), we could stop definately stop a few missiles from NK. Notice that Wolfowitz said 90% success rate vs total completion of the system mentioned by said expert. by the end of the year we will have a few interceptors and much of the radar we will need in place, it has all been tested.

Also you won't win browny points with RU-486 being stopped for testing, this drug has killed people(not including those it was intended to kill of course).

you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Waddya expect? These are the same people who insist marijuana has no medicinal properties...

Go away Berzerker.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

Sava,
IF it is working, MDS, where did he distort facts, are you splitting hairs and I am not just seeing it?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

I'm not saying that anyone is biased or wrong, I'm saying that they said different things.

[chequita guevara]

Oh god, not this crap again. With the exception of the lasers, the only GBMD's to succeed at their tests were masively hceating (as proof a concept). Radar tracking was outbound, rather than in bound, and the target was made extra easy to hit. This proves that given enough time and research, such a system might work, but it's not anywhere near ready for deployment, which the Bushies started doing a while ago.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh god, not this crap again. With the exception of the lasers, the only GBMD's to succeed at their tests were masively hceating (as proof a concept). Radar tracking was outbound, rather than in bound, and the target was made extra easy to hit. This proves that given enough time and research, such a system might work, but it's not anywhere near ready for deployment, which the Bushies started doing a while ago.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have an article on this I can read.

[GePap]

On every test of the system, the guys running the interceptors knew exactly were the enemy missile was coming (and what kind it was), its always done in good weather (at both sites, launch and interceptor site), its always the same test..and they still have not gotten to 100%.....