Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Feb 10, 2005.
i want to vomit.
I'm taking that with a grain of salt, given only a 30% response rate. There have been all sorts of rumors about such 'repressions' for months. Give me a survey that has a greater than 65% response rate, then there might be something to talk about.
At 30%, I'd almost guaranty that everybody that responded has some axe to grind; prolly hates Bush just because he actually won the election, and Kerry didn't.
fascinating. so it's the scientists playing politics, not the agency itself. this despite:
1. at least one bush administration official thinks the endangered species act is too strong
2. the bush administration has been all too willing in other situations, like iraq, to either look at only the data they want or, allegedly, dictated it
3. the bush budget is cutting funds for the endangered species program
4. scientists tend to be adamantly non-partisan when it comes to science
astounding. perhaps i need to vomit again. and i'll take you up on that 'guaranty.' i'm ready to see your evidence.
1) Maybe it's too strong, maybe it's not. I personally have no opinion on the Act.
2) Completely off topic
3) They're 'cutting' funds for almost everybody. Of course, it's not really a 'cut', I don't get an automatic 3% increase in pay every year, why should govt programs?
4) scientists are just like everybody else, they're human last I checked. And being 'adamantly non-partisan' is a bunch of hog-wash especially in the realm of environmental science.
Feel free to vomit, just don't pollute my drinking water supply when you do, and stop driving you're global warming device that gets you to work everyday.
You still haven't provided me with viable 'evidence' as you put it.
i've got an LA Times article. what have you got? nothing other than an opinion based on bias and no evidence. do you see the irony?
Ok, since you provide that link as your overwhealming proof, here goes:
Wow! That's half of the 30% of the respondents, hmm, 15% isn't much.
Ok, so which way is it? You can't have it both ways.
Besides, whenever I managed to get dragged into these political discussions, if I quote something from foxnews.com you laugh and say 'well, that's not a real news source!' Well, the LA Times isn't very well known for being well balanced either.
You're assuming the other 70% who did not return the survey felt no such pressure. What justifies such a leap?
Countering your bull**** logic with my own bull**** logic, I'll simply say that the 70% who didn't respond were probably even more afraid of repercussions and didn't want to risk getting any "attention." So they threw the survey in the trashcan and played it safe.
You're being deliberately obtuse. It's right there in black and white.
The poll paints a picture where half the gov't scientists know of such cases and many who were involved in a case where varying amounts of political pressure was placed on their very nonpolitical work.
So where's the bias in this article?
How can the LAT article possibly be not "well balanced" if you were able to pick out a rebuttal to zim's argument using the same article?
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Over the last four years, quite a few long-time, high-ranking employees of the EPA and Interior Dept. have resigned for precisely the reasons cited in the article. I think it's pretty unusual for any significant number of federal employees to feel like an administration is so hostile to their basic mission that they feel compelled to complain, let alone, quit. I'm not sure why Republicans would deny what's going on anyway. I should think they'd be celebrating, the destruction of these programs being so high on their agenda.
Oh come now. I'm sure the Repubicans have something in mind to restore wildlife numbers...
We just have to figure out how money can be made in the process with almost no startup costs and the $$$ only going to a few guys at the top.
We trash the ESA and lease out the National Parks' vast tracts of wasted space to firms who will put in Hunting Ranches and the EPA can do the Farming! It's a perfect Republican business model: The Gvt. pays for the expensive part and then pays a firm owned by family or friends of Republican politicians to take care of overpopulation. The company then turns around and sells Hunters the rights to cap a few varmints.
The new setup would include fees based on where the critters fall on the new and improved version of the old ESA: The 2005 Federal Species Rarity Pricing Index. Gophers? We'll pay for your bullets!! Mule Deer? $50.00/Ea. for a male plus an extra $10.00 per point, $200.00/Ea. for a female. Act now we'll only be overstocked on Deer until Winter.
That's not what the stats said or implied. To me it read ''However, 69% of the respondents 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% of the respondents said they had never been required to do so."
So let's do some math, shall we?
69% never given a directive
50+% given a directive
Hmm, that adds up to more than 100%. LA Times must be using new math or something...
It's all one direction, which is what I was pointing out.
I don't understand what you're griping about. The Bush administration has managed to roll back environmental protections on virtually every front. You should be dancing in the streets. Or would that be unseemly?
Ah spin..... The silt in the fertile waters of the American data stream.
69% had never been given a "directive".
"More than half" were "Ordered to alter findings".
Somewhat more than half were told on paper, in a verifyable fashion to alter findings.
A total of 69% were instructed to alter findings. We can deduce from this that roughly 17% to 19% were given verbal instructions to alter findings.
Of the total number 40% responded as "not required to do so" meaning that 9% (likely part of the former 17% to 19%) of the 69% who had cited orders or instructions to do so either chose to ignore those instructions without consequence or the instructions were couched as "requests" from management.
Survey numbers do not add up cleanly when the survey isn't constructed to yield simple numbers and answers but is instead written to get an accurate sample of complete data.
Here is a link to the original study:
I'll just point out that one of relimw's chief concerns is that not enough people responded...However, this isn't the sort of survey where the consensus opinion matters. If everyone responded and over 50% said they didn't personally feel any pressure, that does not mean that no pressure was exerted.
The problem here isn't that everyone felt pressure, it is that anyone felt pressure. Therefore, I would be concerned even if 10-20 scientists said that they had been pressured to alter data.
but he's using a fallacious argument. he's contending that, because too few people alleged the behavior, it proves that they have ulterior motives, and because they have ulterior motives, the alleged behavior didn't exist.
it's like asking 10 women if a certain man raped them. when 9 say no, relimw claims the 10th woman also wasn't raped.
Besides, these stories about these alleged rapes you speak of are being reported by theliberalmedia so we shouldn't believe them anyway.
didn't you forget a trademark symbol?
And if she claims she was, she's obviously just got a grudge against the hapless bloke.
Please read the rest of my original post. I said exactly what you've just said.