Undermining Science

Anti-reflexivity

“…Obfuscated the results of scientific research by A. Selectively promoted existing Conservative think-tanks relied upon a handful of cherry-picked studies by contrarian scientists while ignoring publications by contrarian the scientific consensus during the 1990s and early 2000s (McCright andDunlap, 2000, 2003) scientists with positions at odds White House removed mention of 2001 National Academy of Sciences climate change report from the EPA's draft with the scientific consensus report on the environment in favor of a largely discredited single publication by two climate change skeptics (Mooney, 2005;Shulman, 2006;UCS, 2008b) B. Funded contrarian scientists to Conservative think-tanks enlisted the services of well-known climate change skeptics as authors or expert sources produce new reports that are for a few hundred policy briefs, position statements, op-ed essays, and press releases in the 1990s (Austin and often not peer-reviewed Phoenix, 2005;Jacques et al, 2008;Lahsen, 2005;McCright and Dunlap, 2003) 2.…”

“…They also manipulated the results of scientific research by editing government agency reports prior to publication. While this practice by White House officials in the CCSP, CEQ and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) was rampant (Begley, 2007;Faris, 2008;GAP, 2007;Mooney, 2005;Shulman, 2006;UCS, 2007UCS, , 2008b; US House of Representatives, 2007), we only discuss two particularly illustrative cases -Philip Cooney's September 2002 edits of the EPA's annual air pollution report and his June 2003 edits of the EPA's draft version of its 'State of the Environment' report.…”

“…Conservative activists in the Bush administration have also silenced, censored or otherwise targeted individual scientists employed at government agencies (Bowen, 2008;GAP, 2007;National Aeronautics and Space Administration [NASA], 2008;Shulman, 2006;UCS, 2008aUCS, , 2008bUCS and GAP, 2007;US House of Representatives, 2007). A striking example of Bush administration officials targeting scientists is seen in the case of Dr Robert Watson.…”

“…LLEGATIONS OF the George W. Bush administration's misuse and abuse of science have been offered, often with considerable supporting documentation, by journalists (Mooney, 2005;Shulman, 2006), scientists (Bowen, 2008), science advocacy organizations (Union of Concerned Scientists, 2004a, 2004b, 2008a, 2008b, civil rights advocacy organizations (Simoncelli and Stanley, 2005), government whistleblowers (Piltz, 2007) and policy-makers (US House of Representatives, 2003Representatives, , 2005Representatives, , 2007. Further, essays by the editors of such prestigious peer-reviewed journals as Science (e.g.…”