As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/
Options
Political Interference with Science
Veegeezee
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
In January, the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform held a hearing regarding the interference of government interests in scientific research, specifically pertaining to climatology. You can read the original witness testimonies here, and find some further reading worth recommending in Atmosphere of Pressure (pdf). A follow-up hearing was held yesterday, in which a few more testimonies were given and an updated draft of its compilation of exhibits (big pdf) and a memorandum (fun-size pdf) were presented. If you skip everything else, the latter will suffice as an overview.
From the deposition of Philip Cooney, former Chief of Staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality:
Yesterday's testimonies can be found here.
Now, this is all completely without regard to whether our ecosystem is or is not on the cusp of a thermodynamic and anthropogenic catastrofuck; the meddling of administrators with scientific results has popped up elsewhere (including in stem cell research, endangered species studies, and so on, which is touched on in the hearings), but it's as unsettling to recognize the extent of government interference with federal science as it is refreshing to see it openly confronted.
From the deposition of Philip Cooney, former Chief of Staff, White House Council on Environmental Quality:
Q: ...[the American Petroleum Institute] was concerned about the issue of climate change because they did not want this country or other countries to reduce petroleum product use; is that correct?
A: Someone wrote that reason on this sheet. API had a number of policy concerns relating to climate that went beyond the narrow potential of reduced petroleum use. I think that there was a general and well-founded and consensus view among the membership that the Kyoto Protocol would have been harmful for the American economy and the world economy and was bad public policy and that we, as an industry, along with other industries and other voices in society should step up and oppose harmful policies, but I don't deny that there was a parochial interest to the industry based upon these words that are on this sheet.
A: Someone wrote that reason on this sheet. API had a number of policy concerns relating to climate that went beyond the narrow potential of reduced petroleum use. I think that there was a general and well-founded and consensus view among the membership that the Kyoto Protocol would have been harmful for the American economy and the world economy and was bad public policy and that we, as an industry, along with other industries and other voices in society should step up and oppose harmful policies, but I don't deny that there was a parochial interest to the industry based upon these words that are on this sheet.
Yesterday's testimonies can be found here.
Now, this is all completely without regard to whether our ecosystem is or is not on the cusp of a thermodynamic and anthropogenic catastrofuck; the meddling of administrators with scientific results has popped up elsewhere (including in stem cell research, endangered species studies, and so on, which is touched on in the hearings), but it's as unsettling to recognize the extent of government interference with federal science as it is refreshing to see it openly confronted.
Veegeezee on
0
Posts
The point is, that science can be pointed out precisly because it leaves room for error and the possibility of being wrong. The problem with all of this politicised science is that it does not, and as you can see, is generally only to benifit a group of people to make monitary gains.
That's true, it isn't a government agency. It does play a nontrivial role in lobbying on policy issues though.
What do you mean by 'the smart money'?
Which makes me feel that global warming, and the exxon-backed experts that decry it, is nothing new in regards to the opposition that it faces.