Bush administration distorting science.

First link I could find, there's plently of others. Sorry if it's all ready been posted, but I couldn't find it:

More than 60 influential scientists, including 20 Nobel laureates, issued a statement last week 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.�


�The input from individuals whose views are not in the main line of their policy don�t seem to be sought or welcomed,� [Dr Drell] said.

www.abs-cbnnews.com...

This has been alluded to in the global warming case, but this report seems to seek to make clear that's not the only issue it relates to. Looks like a more damning report than a supposed pentagon file to me, even if not all the Dr's are in complete agreement (which would probably be impossible on any issue.)
If even the gist of it is accurate, it's disgusting and extremely frustrating. Is it done just to protect Big Business, or to shield us from the hard reality of what is and shall be, or both?
I vote for Big Business. We all know that when they sponsor an scientific study it's far more respectable than any of the hundreds done by independent organisations, right?

First of all I personally know somebody that is a campaigner at their offices in Washington DC. A very leftwing person I may add.

I do not disagree that their beliefs are totally wrong but what environmentalists want (backed by socialists btw and countries like Russia and China- but both countries will not limit their pollution output though), is the US to severely limit its pollution output to the extent that it harms its ability to stay at Number 1.

All this without being able to sufficiently prove the cause of global warming and admitting that man's contribution to this problem is only partial at best.

Our future does not lie in socialistic green party political control of the western would in order to make globalistic NWO socialists happy, but in our ability to find far better alternatives asap for our energy and lifestyle needs. Alternatives that for the most part are only fantasy at the moment.

Well, a republican keeps intelligance from getting out. Wow, a republican decides to censor things that would hurt the big businesses. Wait, I am not surprised, he a republican, he stands for everything wrong, evil, and corrupt. Anyways, not surprising Bush would do this.

"Is our children learnding?" Bush in a speech.

You prefer socialism then to what is now? I hope not.

This has got nothing to do with socialism.

This is about a large group of eminent scientists including 20 Nobel Laureates, 12 holders of the National Medal of Science, university chairs and presidents and former government advisors, including the head of the Environmental Protection Agency under Nixon and Ford, accusing the government of deliberately distorting and omitting scientific facts to conform to its own political agenda. It is not just some green group shouting the odds. The government is doing this to fit in with policies of their funders and partners, Big Business.

They are not just concerned with huge pollution cutting measures that would reduce the countries status or economy, they are concerned with anything or any measure that would even slightly reduce profits or increase costs, whatever the cost of that may be.
The government of course, also needs to keep the public from getting too turned onto these problems, in case they're forced to actually do something about it.

Anyway, it's not all about the environment. The report says they are also distorting facts in respect to health, biomedical research and nuclear weaponry at home and abroad.

Now what does that tell you? I think at least part of the nuclear distortion would be the effects of depleted uranium.
What else is hiding in those categories?