Faking science? Bush team must think we're stupid

[cal04]

Hard to believe, but they're at it again.

After 2002, when a National Cancer Institute statement reporting no link between abortion and breast cancer was changed by the Bush administration to say evidence of a link was inconclusive, after the administration cut language on global warming from a 2003 report by the Environmental Protection Agency, after a government scientist was forbidden in 2001 and 2002 from discussing health hazards posed by airborne bacteria emanating from animal waste at large factory farms, after 60 scientists -- 20 of them Nobel laureates -- signed a statement in 2004 accusing the White House of manipulating and distorting science for political aims, after all that, Team Bush has once again been caught censoring science it dislikes.

I refer you to this week's testimony before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The committee produced paperwork documenting many dozens of instances in which the former chief of staff of the White House Council on Environmental Quality edited scientific reports on global warming. He cut definitive statements and replaced them with doubtful ones in order to portray climate change as something less than the settled science most experts consider it to be.

(snip)
And get this: The guy changing the scientific reports is not a scientist. Philip Cooney is an oil man, previously employed by the American Petroleum Institute, the industry's lobbying arm. When he left the government in 2005, he went to work for ExxonMobil.

(snip)
They think we're a bunch of doofuses, dimwits and dolts who will never notice that they've placed the interests of their cronies above our own.

For the record, I am not stupid and I resent being treated as if I am.
http://www.miamiherald.com/418/story/50043.html

[Fridays Child]

1. k/r

[whistle]

2. BushCo manufactures information in an information age quoting

...former Secretary of Preemptive War, Donald Rumsfeld: "There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know. Then of course there are the things we simply make up so we can pretend that we know.":wtf:

[Doctor_J]

3. Bush backers ARE stupid

[sakabatou]

4. They are evil

Of course data would be used like that.

[caligirl]

5. Yes that is what they believe. thats why Gonzo is about to loose his job.

[glitch]

6. Or they're too stupid to know we aren't. nt

[Morgana LaFey]

7. Well, you have to admit they have some compelling evidence

on the matter of us (the American people) being a bunch of doofuses, dimwits and dolts -- they've gotten away with stealing 3 elections, and quite a few other felonies and corruption. What would YOU conclude under the same circumstances?

[GeorgeGist]

8. They don't think that.

They KNOW most Americans are incredibly naive where science is concerned.