Wildlife Deputy Changed Science For Lobbyists 174
fistfullast33l writes "In another case of a government official creating a 'unique' interpretation of science, TPM Muckraker reports on Julie MacDonald, deputy assistant secretary for fish and wildlife and parks in the Department of the Interior in Washington. The Department's Inspector General issued a report today documenting evidence that MacDonald not only overrode opinions of department scientists to benefit lobbyists, and political interests, but also that she shared internal documents with said lobbyists and a friend in an unnamed online roleplaying game. My favorite episode: 'At one point, according to Fish and Wildlife Service Director H. Dale Hall, MacDonald tangled with field personnel over designating habitat for the endangered Southwestern willow flycatcher, a bird whose range is from Arizona to New Mexico and Southern California. When scientists wrote that the bird had a nesting range of 2.1 miles, MacDonald told field personnel to change the number to 1.8 miles. Hall, a wildlife biologist who told the IG he had had a running battle with MacDonald, said she did not want the range to extend to California because her husband had a family ranch there.'"
MMOG? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Recommended Reading (Score:2, Interesting)
You're right in that the scale is different. The biggest worry for me personally is the republicans push for "abstinence only" sex education, and the constant attempts to bring "intelligent design" into schools. Those two alone pretty much dwarf anything the dems have done. But it's silly to pretend that the dems are much better - they just tend to be less visible because they attack "acceptable targets". When a republican claims that evolution doesn't exist, people get real upset, but when a democrat claims that nuclear power is bad, people pretty much buy it hook, line, and sinker. There's a lot of bad science out there being pushed by the dems too, but people aren't aware of it because most of us have already bought into it.
Re:Recommended Reading (Score:5, Interesting)
That comment demonstrates the "scale" of the problem. What specific point(s) of "research" and "evidence" do you consider questionable/lies?
BTW: Don't get me wrong, I agree that all politcians use and abuse dogma but the current US Administration has had way too many public spats with their own scientific advisers to ignore (and I live on the other side of the pacific ocean!!!).
It was as large... (Score:1, Interesting)
I am personally of the opinion that global climate change comes from a variety of factors, with man made greenhouse gas emissions being just one part of the mix. Solar flux appears to be a large part, cosmic rays, natural Earth cycles, etc, are all there to look at.
I think you'd have to be just a touch naieve to not see the political angle here from the Gaia crowd, along with the political angle from the pro coal and oil profits crowd. They both exist and both sides have their own tame scientists, who after all are only human and have the same frailties as anyone else and are as much money driven as anyone. The Gaia crowd also seem to want some sort of strange world government and such odd ideas as a carbon tax-like who decided they owned all the carbon so they should be able to tax everyone about it? Sounds a little fascist-takeover-ey to me...
Science has always had politics and faddism attached to it, it has never been "pure", and it certainly isn't now. And in the future, don't you think we'll look back at the science of today and see a lot of flaws?
With that said, I support as much of a switch as possible away from petroleum based fuels and coal. They are just too dirty, and too much money goes to some pretty dodgy corporations and nations because of it. And I would like to see a lot more wallet than mouth from the Gaia crowd, the rate of adoption of solar PV by individuals is still relatively low for instance. I own some (and as such have a wide circle of acquaintances who also use some, being an enthusiast we talk to each other), but haven't met too many heavy Gaia activists who have bothered to switch to cleaner energy yet, in fact, most people I know who use solar power would actually be classed as more traditional conservative (not neocon, the old regular kind of conservative).
How about you, is your domicile solar powered yet, at least partly? Do you live in a superinsulated home or apartment? Do you drive a pure electric vehicle that uses renewables to get a charge? Do you grow most of your own food, or purchase direct from an organic farmer locally? Have you installed a ground loop heat pump system, or built a methane digester, or make your own biodiesel? Have you invested in triple pane gas filled window systems? Have you eschewed non necessary electronic gadgets, such as videogame consoles and iPods? Do you avoid long distance airline travel, and visit and tourist locally instead? Is your hot water tap solar thermal powered?
And etc. there is a large list that individuals can do to help out.
You see it is easy to demand that this they guy "do something", but quite another once your own wallet is on the line. And that is part of the "debate" now, a very large and loud contingent is demanding this or that, but once it gets down to individual actions they just point fingers at everyone else.
Sure you understand Popper? (Score:3, Interesting)
What we are really discussing is a "should" statement. The question is "What should be done, if anything, about environmental changes?" There can be no rationally justified answer to this question, just as there can be no rationally justified answer to any "should" statement. There are no good reasons, rationally speaking, for taking any action for the simple fact that predicting the future is impossible. When it comes to "should" statements we must rely on the probabilities produced by models of the problem.
So, for climate change, there are a number of parameters that our model needs to understand in order to calculate the probable success of any proposal to not cause or even prevent harm to society. If the climate changes will cause harm, can we alter them? Is human action contributing to the harmful climate changes? What human actions will reduce harm the most?
What I believe the parent was communicating and the point Gore was trying to make, was that the scientific statements that have survived falsification thus far best fit the explanation that the earth is getting warmer due to increased carbon levels that are currently best explained by fossil fuel burning, that this is harmful and that we should do something about it. What Gore and a large part of the scientific community are trying to say, is that further attempts at falsification before action is taken is self-defeating at best and suicidal at worst. Will we ever know for sure? Nope. Can't be sure the sun is going to come up tomorrow until tomorrow either. I'm not real inclined to quit taking any action today that has to do with tomorrow because I can't be sure the sun is going to come up. Especially given the really huge probability that the sun is going to rise tomorrow. Just as the scientific facts which have survived falsification point to the sun coming up tomorrow, they point to human assisted global climate changes.
Either falsify the science that leads to these calculations of probabilities or start arguing for a course of action that deals with the changes. Anything else has no information content that is meaningful to the discussion. Oh, and go read David Miller's "Out of Error". It will bring you up to speed on what's happened with Popper's ideas since the 30's.
Re:Global Warming is the Left's ID... (Score:2, Interesting)
The problem is, worrying about eventual global cooling of this type is kind of like worrying about what to do as you glide down a long and gently wavering ski slope (i.e. "global cooling"), while ignoring the trees pointing the other way that are in your path (i.e. "global warming"), and for which are a much more immediate concern. It doesn't mean scientists were or are wrong about the eventual expectation that a new ice age will occur, they just realized there was a shorter-term and more alarming climate trend the other way. Scientists haven't changed their minds or been "wrong" so much as realized there was a more pressing concern than the long-term trend.
One thing that realization suggests is that sequestration of CO2 might be useful -- we might want it back in a few centuries or thousands of years to stave off an ice age (kind of like terraforming our own planet).