purplecthulhu

I made a shocking discovery recently. One of my colleagues is a Bush supporter. I had a fairly long discussion with him about this on Friday, though this was cut short by my needing to catch a train. Among other things, he doesn't believe that there is any firm evidence for anthropogenic climate change. We spent most of our time talking about that, but there's a lot more to Bush's problems than just Kyoto. One thing that is clear is that he thinks a lot of what is said against Bush is 'propaganda', so I'm looking for links to clearly independent and authoritative sources that can dissuade him from his odd perspective.

Please send me links or comments that could help with his education, and that of anyone who happens to read my journal. Things to note: he's an australian astrophysicist, so might be persuadable through a scientific argument.



Hi,

I don't really want to spam you too much on this, but this is one report on the Bush administration's attitude to science that should worry anyone who is a scientist. The people who put this report together, the Union of Concerned Scientists, is not a political body. The report was treated as authoritative in the media when it came out, and it deals with issues
across a wide range of fields. To quote:

Across a broad range of issues-from childhood lead
poisoning and mercury emissions to climate change, reproductive
health, and nuclear weapons-the administration is distorting and
censoring scientific findings that contradict its policies;
manipulating the underlying science to align results with
predetermined political decisions; and undermining the independence of
science advisory panels by subjecting panel nominees to political
litmus tests that have little or no bearing on their expertise;
nominating non-experts or underqualified individuals from outside the
scientific mainstream or with industry ties; as well as disbanding
science advisory committees altogether.

These activities are of grave concern to members of the scientific
community as well as to those who rely on government information to
inform policy decisions. But they should also concern the American
public, which places its trust in the government as an honest broker
of scientific information and one that will protect our health and
safety.

I've seen concern expressed on many of these issues and others, including stem cell research, atmospheric pollution (ground level, not CO2 and greenhouse gasses), AIDS, birth control and abortion, in what appears to be a clear pattern of ignoring scientific results that don't match pre-determined conclusions. There is increasing evidence that a similar attitude played a part in triggering the invasion of Iraq - see reports today about Richard Clark, an anti-terrorism expert who's worked for everyone since Reagan.

I would hope that any scientist would agree that this is not a sensible way to run a country in the modern world.

For more see:

www.ucusa.org