At least Bush loves the enviornment....

[NoCalMike 0]

U.S. Scientists Say They Are Told to Alter Findings

More than 200 Fish and Wildlife researchers cite cases where conclusions were reversed to weaken protections and favor business, a survey finds.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/na...=la-home-nation

By Julie Cart, Times Staff Writer

 

More than 200 scientists employed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service say they have been directed to alter official findings to lessen protections for plants and animals, a survey released Wednesday says.

 

The survey of the agency's scientific staff of 1,400 had a 30% response rate and was conducted jointly by the Union of Concerned Scientists and Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility.

 

A division of the Department of the Interior, the Fish and Wildlife Service is charged with determining which animals and plants should be placed on the endangered species list and designating areas where such species need to be protected.

 

More than half of the biologists and other researchers who responded to the survey said they knew of cases in which commercial interests, including timber, grazing, development and energy companies, had applied political pressure to reverse scientific conclusions deemed harmful to their business.

 

Bush administration officials, including Craig Manson, an assistant secretary of the Interior who oversees the Fish and Wildlife Service, have been critical of the 1973 Endangered Species Act, contending that its implementation has imposed hardships on developers and others while failing to restore healthy populations of wildlife.

 

Along with Republican leaders in Congress, the administration is pushing to revamp the act. The president's proposed budget calls for a $3-million reduction in funding of Fish and Wildlife's endangered species programs.

 

"The pressure to alter scientific reports for political reasons has become pervasive at Fish and Wildlife offices around the country," said Lexi Shultz of the Union of Concerned Scientists.

 

Mitch Snow, a spokesman for the Fish and Wildlife Service, said the agency had no comment on the survey, except to say "some of the basic premises just aren't so."

 

The two groups that circulated the survey also made available memos from Fish and Wildlife officials that instructed employees not to respond to the survey, even if they did so on their own time. Snow said that agency employees could not use work time to respond to outside surveys.

 

Fish and Wildlife scientists in 90 national offices were asked 42 questions and given space to respond in essay form in the mail-in survey sent in November.

 

One scientist working in the Pacific region, which includes California, wrote: "I have been through the reversal of two listing decisions due to political pressure. Science was ignored — and worse, manipulated, to build a bogus rationale for reversal of these listing decisions."

 

More than 20% of survey responders reported they had been "directed to inappropriately exclude or alter technical information."

 

However, 69% said they had never been given such a directive. And, although more than half of the respondents said they had been ordered to alter findings to lessen protection of species, nearly 40% said they had never been required to do so.

 

Sally Stefferud, a biologist who retired in 2002 after 20 years with the agency, said Wednesday she was not surprised by the survey results, saying she had been ordered to change a finding on a biological opinion.

 

"Political pressures influence the outcome of almost all the cases," she said. "As a scientist, I would probably say you really can't trust the science coming out of the agency."

 

A biologist in Alaska wrote in response to the survey: "It is one thing for the department to dismiss our recommendations, it is quite another to be forced (under veiled threat of removal) to say something that is counter to our best professional judgment."

 

Don Lindburg, head of the office of giant panda conservation at the Zoological Society of San Diego, said it was unrealistic to expect federal scientists to be exempt from politics or pressure.

 

"I've not stood in the shoes of any of those scientists," he said. "But it is not difficult for me to believe that there are pressures from those who are not happy with conservation objectives, and here I am referring to development interest and others.

 

"But when it comes to altering data, that is a serious matter. I am really sorry to hear that scientists working for the service feel they have to do that. Changing facts to fit the politics — that is a very unhealthy thing. If I were a scientist in that position I would just refuse to do it."

 

The Union of Concerned Scientists and the public employee group provided copies of the survey and excerpts from essay-style responses.

 

One biologist based in California, who responded to the survey, said in an interview with The Times that the Fish and Wildlife Service was not interested in adding any species to the endangered species list.

 

"For biologists who do endangered species analysis, my experience is that the majority of them are ordered to reverse their conclusions [if they favor listing]. There are other biologists who will do it if you won't," said the biologist, who spoke on condition of anonymity.

[EricMM 0]

NO!

 

SHIT!

 

SHERLOCK!

 

Anyone who doesn't think Bush would totally sell out the environment for a trillion dollars, raise their hand.

[Vern Gagne 0]

That's alot of money. I would tell Smokey the Bear to take hike.

[EricMM 0]

Because you're shortsighted.

 

You don't know about environmental cost.

 

I know it's a lot of money. But it's not enough money, there isn't enough money. There will always be more money. The environment is living and dying. Once it's dead is dearly hard to reproduce.

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Can't make the paper to print the money on without cutting down a few trees. Oxygen is over rated anyways *gags on smog*

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Oh, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Smokey the Bear attacked President Bush

[Big Ol' Smitty 0]

Oh, and I wouldn't shed a tear if Smokey the Bear attacked President Bush

BAN PLZ~!

[Slayer 0]

I just want the day to be over and will pray for the safety of Smokey the Bear.

[Styles 0]

I just want the day to be over and will pray for the safety of Smokey the Bear.

My computer screen froze.

 

Ok, its back now.

[MrRant 0]

Stop buying $10 computers then.

 

Commie.

[Styles 0]

Stop buying $10 computers then.

 

Commie.

Sorry, that was the food man, I had to answer the door.

[The Czech Republic 0]

He's like the milk man, you know.

[Golgo 13 0]

Except he's the food man.

[Guest MikeSC]

So, because Bush doesn't buy into a scientific theory that is not even close to being universally supported, he's bad?

 

I guess the Vatican punished scientists in the wrong century. They'd be APPLAUDED for protecting weak theories if they did it today.

-=Mike

[Guest Failed Mascot]

Don't you have a blog to be writing to which nobody reads?

[Guest MikeSC]

Don't you have a blog to be writing to which nobody reads?

Don't you have a point to continue not making?

-=Mike

[Guest Failed Mascot]

That was terrible Mike. You should be ashamed for that comeback.

[Guest MikeSC]

That was terrible Mike. You should be ashamed for that comeback.

You have to tailor your material to the audience.

-=Mike

[Guest Failed Mascot]

That's an admition that the Current Event regulars are terrible if I ever heard one.

[Guest MikeSC]

That's an admition that the Current Event regulars are terrible if I ever heard one.

If I knew what the hell an "admition" was, I might even concur.

-=Mike

[Guest Failed Mascot]

I have to tailor my spelling to the audience.

[Guest MikeSC]

I have to tailor my spelling to the audience.

You might wish to tailor it further. Maybe raise the hem to over the knee or some other shit like that.

-=Mike

[EricMM 0]

Even if this were about global warming, which you think is false, the scientists would be correct, and Bush would be wrong. You'd be wrong.

 

But it's not. This is about Bush telling scientists to allow greater amounts of pollution and deforestation to allow more mining and other development at the cost of biological diversity, ecology, and general wellbeing.

 

As stated previously, if Bush could get a promised one trillion dollars for destroying an ecosystem, he'd do it. Which is why he's (well one of the reasons why he's) unfit to lead this country.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

That's an admition that the Current Event regulars are terrible if I ever heard one.

We are.

 

So what's the big deal?

 

Don't you have a blog to be writing to which nobody reads?

 

That got a laugh out of me. Carry on with your tickle fight...

[EricMM 0]

Seriously, not only is y'all's bitching pointless, pervasive, and annoying, but it's off topic.

 

I'll own Mike six ways from sunday regarding the environment, but leave smokey the bear out of it. He's not even real. Forest fires aren't even a problem for FORESTS.

[Guest MikeSC]

Seriously, not only is y'all's bitching pointless, pervasive, and annoying, but it's off topic.

 

I'll own Mike six ways from sunday regarding the environment, but leave smokey the bear out of it.  He's not even real.  Forest fires aren't even a problem for FORESTS.

You cannot prove that anything man has done has caused any change in the environment. You cannot prove that anything man has done leads to the greenhouse effect. You cannot prove that anything Bush has done has made the environment actually worse. You cannot claim that we've reduced forest land as we have not done so.

 

You are griping because Bush doesn't buy into your article of faith about the environment --- an article of faith with even FEWER intellectual underpinnings than basic Christian dogma.

 

The environmental movement has made itself into an irrelevant joke with dire warnings that did not begin to come true, with vastly different outcomes (from an ice age, to global warming, to whatever they come up with next).

 

The "science" of environmentalism is little more than a substitute for religion at this point. And the environmentalists simply act like the Vatican, circa 15th Century, in condemning "Heretics" to their belief system.

 

And, like it or not, Bush is as historically relevant a President as we've had in a long while and his shadow will cast over the 21st Century.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You cannot prove that anything man has done has caused any change in the environment.

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment".

 

Air pollution is also very real, and very man made.

[Guest MikeSC]

You cannot prove that anything man has done has caused any change in the environment.

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment".

 

Air pollution is also very real, and very man made.

It cannot be proved that the damage is terribly long-lived.

 

And we, much to our credit, HAVE improved things markedly over the last 100 years.

 

But, I do not believe that the greenhouse effect is real. I do not believe that we can destroy the world.

 

I think a belief that we can is simply the arrogance of man.

-=Mike

[SuperJerk 0]

You cannot prove that anything man has done has caused any change in the environment.

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment".

 

Air pollution is also very real, and very man made.

It cannot be proved that the damage is terribly long-lived.

When you put it THAT way, I can't argue. We haven't been keeping records long enough to kno for sure.

[Guest MikeSC]

You cannot prove that anything man has done has caused any change in the environment.

I'd say that a chemical factory poisoning a water supply by dumpng waste in it is not only provable, but would also constitute a "change in the environment".

 

Air pollution is also very real, and very man made.

It cannot be proved that the damage is terribly long-lived.

When you put it THAT way, I can't argue. We haven't been keeping records long enough to kno for sure.

And that is the problem. We have to assume that the greenhouse effect is real, while ignoring that our accumulated knowledge of the environment and atmosphere is minimal, at best.

-=Mike