Hmmm, Dems yet again ignore science.....

[rushmc 18]

and scientists (and misquote and mis-use their words) to lie to get their way. (or to try to at least)

http://www.newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Gulf-Oil-Spill-Washington/2010/07/22/id/365425

Much the same as Kagan did regarding late term abortions during the Clinton years

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[airdvr 198]

Quote

The Interior Department's May 27 report, which called for the moratorium, said that its recommendations had been "peer-reviewed" by seven experts identified by the National Academy of Engineering.

Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the experts were not asked to review or comment on the decision to implement the moratorium. They were asked only to review the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report on a technical basis, and they performed that task, she said.

The department has said previously that by listing the experts who had peer-reviewed those recommendations, it did not mean to imply that those experts also agreed with the moratorium.

Wow...we really see what we want to see these days don't we?

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Thanks for reiterating my point exactly. I'm glad to see you agree.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[billvon 2,426]

> Dems yet again ignore science and scientists (and misquote and
>mis-use their words) to lie to get their way.

Uh, no. Scientists reviewed the science; politicians made policy decisions. That's how it works.

Scientists agree that CO2 emissions are heating up the planet, and Congress has pretty much ignored them. Why aren't you angry about that? (That's a rhetorical question BTW.)

[airdvr 198]

Quote

> Dems yet again ignore science and scientists (and misquote and
>mis-use their words) to lie to get their way.

Uh, no. Scientists reviewed the science; politicians made policy decisions. That's how it works.

Scientists agree that CO2 emissions are heating up the planet, and Congress has pretty much ignored them. Why aren't you angry about that? (That's a rhetorical question BTW.)

Agreed. But then why lump the 2 together? CYA is my bet. Key word in all of this is "recommendation".

Please don't dent the planet.

Destinations by Roxanne

[billvon 2,426]

>But then why lump the 2 together?

It makes a better argument for more drilling, clearly. (And Newsmax has a long history of being pro-drilling.)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

> Dems yet again ignore science and scientists (and misquote and
>mis-use their words) to lie to get their way.

Uh, no. Scientists reviewed the science; politicians made policy decisions. That's how it works.

Scientists agree that CO2 emissions are heating up the planet, and Congress has pretty much ignored them. Why aren't you angry about that? (That's a rhetorical question BTW.)

So, if you were on a scientific panel that was asked by the Senate at to whether or not solar panels should be put somewhere. You study it and and recommend that they do. And then they (the Senate) say the panel did NOT recommend the installation and use that lie to push the actions not to install, you would be OK with them lying about your position?

Ok

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>But then why lump the 2 together?

It makes a better argument for more drilling, clearly. (And Newsmax has a long history of being pro-drilling.)

Ooppps billvon

You had better read the by line on the bottom of the link

Here, let me help you out

Quote

© Copyright 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[Prior23 0]

Newsmax is just another right winged 3 ringed circus "media" outlet.

B.A.S.E. #1734

[billvon 2,426]

>So, if you were on a scientific panel that was asked by the Senate at to
>whether or not solar panels should be put somewhere. You study it and and
>recommend that they do.

No, that would be a policy panel. Here's how it works:

If I was on a scientific study panel to look into a specific solar installation, I would determine costs, projected costs as technology improved, and how much the power could be sold for now and in the future. I'd figure out how much maintenance would be needed, and how often replacements would be required. I'd determine the effects of the change in albedo of the area, the change in the environment around the power plant, and how rainfall would increase/decrease total power output. I'd probably also look into tracking vs non tracking, best angles based on clouds/obscuration and what sort of peak power point tracking the system would use.

After all that I'd write up a report with an executive summary listing how much it would cost, how much it will make, how much power it will generate over its life etc etc. Then someone would use that report to decide whether or not to build it.

Now, I could be super pro solar, and could include my opinions in that report. I could say "yes, it will be expensive, but we GOTTA DO IT!" And the politician in charge of the money could say "no, that's not a good use of money; taxes are already high enough here." He could then announce at a press conference that my report revealed that it was too expensive to afford.

That is not lying. Indeed, that's how it works.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Newsmax is just another right winged 3 ringed circus "media" outlet.

It is an AP story on NewMax

Is AP just another right winged 3 ringed circus medial outlet?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>So, if you were on a scientific panel that was asked by the Senate at to
>whether or not solar panels should be put somewhere. You study it and and
>recommend that they do.

No, that would be a policy panel. Here's how it works:

If I was on a scientific study panel to look into a specific solar installation, I would determine costs, projected costs as technology improved, and how much the power could be sold for now and in the future. I'd figure out how much maintenance would be needed, and how often replacements would be required. I'd determine the effects of the change in albedo of the area, the change in the environment around the power plant, and how rainfall would increase/decrease total power output. I'd probably also look into tracking vs non tracking, best angles based on clouds/obscuration and what sort of peak power point tracking the system would use.

After all that I'd write up a report with an executive summary listing how much it would cost, how much it will make, how much power it will generate over its life etc etc. Then someone would use that report to decide whether or not to build it.

Now, I could be super pro solar, and could include my opinions in that report. I could say "yes, it will be expensive, but we GOTTA DO IT!" And the politician in charge of the money could say "no, that's not a good use of money; taxes are already high enough here." He could then announce at a press conference that my report revealed that it was too expensive to afford.

That is not lying. Indeed, that's how it works.

They lied about the scienctists recommendation period
Glad you are ok with that

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[billvon 2,426]

>They lied about the scienctists recommendation period

Whoosh.

[rushmc 18]

Quote

>They lied about the scienctists recommendation period

Whoosh.

Telling the truth about the recommendation and doing what you think should be done is one thing. Not done it this case. If they had then the recommendation would have been looked at and then the reasons given to not follow them (as your example shows) would follow

You advocate the gov deceiving the people to make the actions they take more palatable. To make it politicaly more easy so to speak

But to you it about the topic and policy and not being ethical I guess. Ends justify the means, sad really

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

1. The scientists reviewed the safety recommendations. The article does NOT say they made a recommendation one way or another wrt the moratorium.

2. The politicians/appointed administrators made a decision to issue a moratorium. They published a report that covered the safety issues and their justification for the moratorium.

3. The scientists objected that it was not made explicit that they were not the ones who recommended a moratorium, and that they had just reviewed the safety recommendations and didn't say anything one way or the other regarding a moratorium.

Personally I think this thing is politically motivated from top to bottom. I peer review articles for publication in scientific journals all the time, I have 3 of them in my "to do" pile right now in fact. I comment on how clearly the hypothesis is described, whether or not the experiments are well designed to test the hypothesis, and whether the conclusions fit the results. I do not decide whether or not to publish the paper, the editor does that based on my review and that of at least two other reviewers. I can whine if I paper I trashed is accepted for publication, and if it happens a lot I can decline to review for that journal (or editor), but I do not ever make the decision to publish or not, I only can comment on the science. Maybe a paper I liked is refused, because 25 even better papers were submitted at the same time and the journal only has room for 12. That is information the editor has that I don't, which is why they get the final call.

Similarly, administrators must weigh considerations a scientist/engineer doesn't have to know about or have to consider. The engineer can say there is only a 1% chance the specified design for a blow-out preventor will fail, but the administrator/politician must weigh the economic consequences if a failure does occur, and decide if a 1% failure rate is an acceptable risk.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[rushmc 18]

Quote

1. The scientists reviewed the safety recommendations. The article does NOT say they made a recommendation one way or another wrt the moratorium.they are saying they did not recommend or support a moratorium

2. The politicians/appointed administrators made a decision to issue a moratorium. They published a report that covered the safety issues and their justification for the moratorium.

3. The scientists objected that it was not made explicit that they were not the ones who recommended a moratorium, and that they had just reviewed the safety recommendations and didn't say anything one way or the other regarding a moratorium.

Personally I think this thing is politically motivated from top to bottom. I peer review articles for publication in scientific journals all the time, I have 3 of them in my "to do" pile right now in fact. I comment on how clearly the hypothesis is described, whether or not the experiments are well designed to test the hypothesis, and whether the conclusions fit the results. I do not decide whether or not to publish the paper, the editor does that based on my review and that of at least two other reviewers. I can whine if I paper I trashed is accepted for publication, and if it happens a lot I can decline to review for that journal (or editor), but I do not ever make the decision to publish or not, I only can comment on the science. Maybe a paper I liked is refused, because 25 even better papers were submitted at the same time and the journal only has room for 12. That is information the editor has that I don't, which is why they get the final call.

Similarly, administrators must weigh considerations a scientist/engineer doesn't have to know about or have to consider. The engineer can say there is only a 1% chance the specified design for a blow-out preventor will fail, but the administrator/politician must weigh the economic consequences if a failure does occur, and decide if a 1% failure rate is an acceptable risk.

Don

All I am saying is the admin lied about what the recommendations were to support their view. I have no problem (in this context) that the admin did not accept it.

So, give the true recommendations from whom ever, make you case and give a decision. You don't have to lie about what was recommended now do you in these type cases.

But like Kagan with the late term abortions and the recommendations she lied about, we have the same thing here.

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

Well sure the article says that, but the key word here is "implied". That's not the same as saying "everyone who reviewed any aspect of this report agrees completely with the final conclusion", is it? I can understand if the reviewers (or some of them anyway) disagree with the moratorium, but according to the article it seems they weren't asked about the moratorium, they were only asked to review safety procedures. Based on their review, Salazar made a decision that the safety procedures did not provide enough assurance that another accident could not happen, and decided a moratorium was necessary. For some reason (perhaps legitimate) they do not now want to be associated with the moratorium, but the people who would make that implied association are people who do not understand the role of peer reviewers in the process (which admittedly is likely 95% of the population). If you can't accept the possibility that the final policy decision will not be what you would have preferred, you shouldn't agree to participate in the review process I suppose.

Are you aware of a specific statement by Salazar that directly states, or implies more directly than just identifying them as reviewers, that these scientists approved of the moratorium?

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

Well sure the article says that, but the key word here is "implied". That's not the same as saying "everyone who reviewed any aspect of this report agrees completely with the final conclusion", is it? I can understand if the reviewers (or some of them anyway) disagree with the moratorium, but according to the article it seems they weren't asked about the moratorium, they were only asked to review safety procedures. Based on their review, Salazar made a decision that the safety procedures did not provide enough assurance that another accident could not happen, and decided a moratorium was necessary. For some reason (perhaps legitimate) they do not now want to be associated with the moratorium, but the people who would make that implied association are people who do not understand the role of peer reviewers in the process (which admittedly is likely 95% of the population). If you can't accept the possibility that the final policy decision will not be what you would have preferred, you shouldn't agree to participate in the review process I suppose.

Are you aware of a specific statement by Salazar that directly states, or implies more directly than just identifying them as reviewers, that these scientists approved of the moratorium?

Don

If the scientists didn't feel they had been misrepresented, WHY did they call for an investigation? Then there's the fact there were 15 people on the review committee, not just the seven that Salazar mentions that supposedly supports the moratorium.

Link

Quote

A group of engineers and oil experts said Friday that the Interior Department changed the language of a high-profile oil spill report after theyd signed it, falsely signaling their support for a drilling moratorium that they thought went too far.

“The reason we dont agree is that we think it makes the system less safe. It increases risk, it doesnt reduce risk,” Texas oil consultant Ken Allen said in an interview.

Link

Quote

In justifying its broad moratorium on deepwater drilling, the Obama administration emphasized that the measure was recommended by an Interior Department report prepared in consultation with scientists and industry experts.

The May 27 report to President Barack Obama said the experts "peer reviewed" its recommendations, including the six-month moratorium and 22 safety measures.

But eight of the 15 members of the review panel are charging that the administration misrepresented their position by suggesting they supported a blanket moratorium that they actually oppose. Their criticism, and the administration's response, are evidence that the six-month stoppage is based on politics rather than on science.

Link

Quote

Members of a panel of experts brought in to advise the Obama administration on how to address offshore drilling safety after the Deepwater Horizon disaster now say Interior Secretary Ken Salazar falsely implied they supported a six-month drilling moratorium they actually oppose.

Salazar's May 27 report to President Barack Obama said a panel of seven experts "peer reviewed" his recommendations, which included a six-month moratorium on all ongoing drilling in waters deeper than 500 feet. That prohibition took effect a few days later, but the angry panel members and some others who contributed to the Salazar report said they had only reviewed an earlier version of the Interior secretary's report that suggested a six-month moratorium only on new drilling, and then only in waters deeper than 1,000 feet.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[futuredivot 0]

No, the key word is "falsely".

You are only as strong as the prey you devour

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

That would be a policy decision, not a scientific one. They may have disagreed with the policy, but making policy wasn't their prerogative.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

That would be a policy decision, not a scientific one. They may have disagreed with the policy, but making policy wasn't their prerogative.

I agree, however, the issue is the misrepresentation of their support, as stated by the policymakers.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[kallend 1,644]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

That would be a policy decision, not a scientific one. They may have disagreed with the policy, but making policy wasn't their prerogative.

I agree, however, the issue is the misrepresentation of their support, as stated by the policymakers.

The policymakers seem to deny that, according to the article.

"Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the experts were not asked to review or comment on the decision to implement the moratorium. They were asked only to review the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report on a technical basis, and they performed that task, she said."

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I don't see anything in the article you linked to support an allegation that "Dems yet again ignore science". The scientists peer reviewed the technical aspects of safety recommendations in the report, which is what scientists are qualified to do. Politicians made the policy decision to impose a moratorium on deep sea drilling; policy decisions are what politicians are supposed to do. The scientists are objecting to the implication that they are the ones who decided to impose the moratorium, which they have a right to do, but there is nothing in the news article to suggest that they made recommendations that were ignored.

It seems you are the one misquoting and mis-using words.

Don

You could say that, so long as you ignore this paragraph of the article:

"Scientists who consulted with Interior Secretary Ken Salazar for a report on drilling safety this spring said the department falsely implied they had agreed to a "blanket moratorium." The scientists said the drilling moratorium went too far and warned that it may have a lasting impact on the nation's economy."

That would be a policy decision, not a scientific one. They may have disagreed with the policy, but making policy wasn't their prerogative.

I agree, however, the issue is the misrepresentation of their support, as stated by the policymakers.

The policymakers seem to deny that, according to the article.

"Interior spokeswoman Kendra Barkoff said the experts were not asked to review or comment on the decision to implement the moratorium. They were asked only to review the 22 safety recommendations contained in the report on a technical basis, and they performed that task, she said."

Perhaps you need to read the other articles listed further down-thread.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706