>And most regrettably takes the focus off of your otherwise excellent points. > >Excellent points? > >He accused the White House Science advisor, Dr. John Marburger, of >righting a right wing opinion piece or McCarthyite/Bircher fantasy. At >the same time he used a science-fiction/fantasy author to prove his >point. This is far from an excellent point.
David Brin, Phd, is also a noted physicist. If you look at his CV you'll see he's made some notable contributions to the field. Given his qualifications, I think he's more than well qualified to speak on the topic than some PR/Admin flack. > >Out of thousands of presidential appointees, they are all right-wing >fundamentalists except for the five or ten that speak out against the >administration. Somehow they are the only believable ones. Do you see >the bias there? I'm commenting on the ones that try to advance an agenda by censoring scientists. I guess in your eyes if they are admin appointed they can do no wrong. > >The attorney general sounds like nothing more than a disgruntled >worker upset that every word he said wasn't worshiped by the >administration. > >The other item he mentions doesn't have a link and google turned up >nothing. Everything else we discussed was presented by the Union of >Concerned Scientists, a known left-wing group. It's all been debunked >so let's talk about those items. I have provided links to each and every case. so what if a group's focus is left or right wing if the facts are true. So dispute the facts rather than the slurs on the organization. By damning them on some supposed commie influence from over 30 years ago is pure McCarthyism. The point still remains Were there multiple attempts at censoring government scientists or altering scientific reports? Yes or No? Did the Bush administration try to alter the Surgeon Generals recent report on global health to advance their agenda? Yes or No? Did the Bush administration via a political appointee in NASA's PR office try to censor various reports? Yes or No? Did the Bush administration try to censor journal articles by NIH, NOAA or USGS scientists? Yes or No? Did the Bush administration early in their tenure altered NIH breast cancer information web sites to support an anti-abortion agenda? Yes or No. Shall I continue? In a nutshell there is plenty of evidence to answer yes to each of these questions. Now given the data, one can only conclude that the Bush administration has engaged in a systematic effort to politically influence the integrity of the scientific process. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Get involved in the latest ColdFusion discussions, product development sharing, and articles on the Adobe Labs wiki. http://labs/adobe.com/wiki/index.php/ColdFusion_8 Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:239700 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
