result #111508 - 'SCIENTIST' GROUP'S FUNDING COMES WITH LIBERAL 'STRINGS ATTACHED'

search this site: search the web:

Welcome to our New Server! Stronger, faster, and now with Lutein!

result #111508 - 'SCIENTIST' GROUP'S FUNDING COMES WITH LIBERAL 'STRINGS ATTACHED'

user ballots

Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes

Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz

TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase

Discussion
Bug Report

'SCIENTIST' GROUP'S FUNDING COMES WITH LIBERAL 'STRINGS ATTACHED'

[+] serious ballot by herzog
created Wed Jan 24, 07

(CNSNews.com) - At a time when the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) is censuring free market organizations for accepting donations from ExxonMobil, critics have turned the spotlight back onto the UCS, its left-wing positions, and its own funding practices.

In a recent report, the UCS charged that organizations are using oil industry money to create public uncertainty about what it calls "consensus" about climate change and the role of human activity in affecting temperatures see related story. Organizations named in the report have denied the claims.

The UCS describes itself as an "alliance" of over 200,000 citizens and scientists that initially came together in 1969. It integrates "independent scientific research" with "citizen action" for the purpose of developing and implementing "changes to government policy, corporate practices and consumer choices."

But critics say it is an openly political group.

According to James Dellinger, executive director of Greenwatch - a project of the Capital Research Center - the UCS has a long financial association with elements that have a "partisan view of science."

David Martosko, executive director of ActivistCash.com - a division of the Center for Consumer Freedom - agrees. He told Cybercast News Service the UCS would be "more aptly named the Union of Pro-Regulation, Anti-Business Scientists."

University of Virginia environmental scientist Fred Singer, labeled a "climate contrarian" by the UCS, told Cybercast News Service that the union had "zero credibility as a scientific organization" and was more akin to "pressure groups like Greenpeace."

The UCS receives substantial donations from liberal-leaning foundations, and a number of the donations are earmarked for specific studies, used to promote positions on issues including the environment, disarmament and criticism of missile defense initiatives.

Private foundations cumulatively spend tens of millions of dollars annually on climate change projects, according to information made available through the foundations' websites.

Donations to the UCS in recent years include the following:

* 2000 - a $25,000 Carnegie Corporation of New York grant for "dissemination of a report on National Missile Defense."
* 2002 - a $1 million Pew Memorial Trust
grant "to support efforts to increase the nation's commitment to energy efficiency and renewable energy as a cornerstone of a balanced and environmentally sound energy policy."
* 2003 - a $500,000 Energy Foundation grant over two years "to continue to support a national renewable portfolio standard education and outreach effort."
* 2004 - a $50,000 Energy foundation grant "to design and implement the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative carbon market in the Northeast."
* 2004 - a $100,000 Energy foundation grant "to study the impacts of climate change on California using the latest climate modeling."
* 2004 - a $600,000 Energy foundation grant over two years "to promote renewable energy policy at the federal and state levels, with a focus on the Midwest, the Northeast, and California."

In a study published in 2005, the George C. Marshall Institute(GMI) explored funding for global warming studies and reported that the UCS was among the top five recipients of grants dispersed for climate studies.

In a new book, Bonner Cohen, a senior fellow at the National Center for Public Policy Research, observes that a number of environmental activists have expressed exasperation over the amount of "strings attached to the foundation grants" that reduce their independence.

History of activism

Myron Ebell, director of energy and global warming policy at Competitive Enterprise Institute (CEI) - another group listed in the UCS report - holds the organization in low esteem.

"The name suggests everyone involved is some kind of objective scientist, but they tend to be leftist political activists," he said. "Facts mean very little to them."

Cohen told Cybercast News Service the UCS had a "remarkably benign view of the Soviet Union during the 1970s and 1980s and undertook extraordinary efforts to discourage the U.S. from countering whatever moves the Soviet Union was making to enhance its own nuclear arsenal."

When President Reagan was in the White House, the UCS was an ardent supporter of the "nuclear freeze movement" that was designed as a counterbalance to the U.S. administration's pursuit of a stronger national defense, Cohen said.

This was acknowledged by some of the more prominent activists speaking on behalf of the organization in that era.

"The movement owes its momentum to Reagan," John Marks, a UCS member said in 1981. "What binds these people together is the notion that the world is getting closer to nuclear war. People don't feel safer with more missiles."

In 1983, Reagan announced his proposal for the Strategic Defense Initiative (SDI), a missile defense system that would be positioned in outer space. The following year, the UCS convened a panel that determined the system was "technologically unattainable."

Moreover, Henry Kendall, the late MIT physics professor and a UCS founder member, proclaimed Reagan's plan would "de-stabilize" and upset the strategic balance.

Carl Sagan, the late astronomer and popular science writer from Cornell University, worked in cooperation with other UCS members to organize a 15-city tour for Democratic presidential nominee Walter Mondale in 1984.

The union's opposition to missile defense came full circle during the current Bush administration when the president announced in 2002 he was withdrawing from the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty.

The withdrawal gave the U.S. more latitude to pursue a ballistic missile shield to protect America from missile attack by rogue states or terrorist groups.

The UCS is working to derail the project and to that end has received considerable financial support from the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, according to the Capital Research Center.

- - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - -

Are you as concerned by the potential bias that comes from leftwing funding as you are from supposedly rightwing (exxon, halliburton, etc) financial support?

Less concerned, liberals only want the best, unlike conservatives	40%
No, not concerned at all	34%
Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased	25%
More concerned	0%

Ballot #111508: has 32 total votes.
invite people to vote on this ballot!

Comment:

content @ BESTANDWORST.COM

smile bank:

email this ballot link to friends

You can also reach this ballot at :
http://BestAndWorst.com/v/111508.htm

COMMENTS:
"Liberal strings" = "Not lying"

by Guest User from [135.92.84.150,] on Wed Jan 24, 07 9:01am [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
These libigots are muslims are they?

by Mr_Sheepy on Wed Jan 24, 07 9:06am [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
Unfortunately most are not.

I made a similiar ballot several months back and the consensus seems to be that liberal bias is ok in science, because liberals are good.

So if a group of researchers if paid to prove global warming is caused by SUVs (and their continued funding is dependent on getting the "right" answer), that is right and proper, and if you say otherwise it means you hate the enviroment. But if they're paid by an oil company to prove the opposite (and their continued funding depends on getting the "right" answer), that is horribly biased and downright evil. Well, they're half right. I guess the voters here are at least consistent, if horribly wrong.

Science shouldn't be political, bias either way is a concern.

by herzog on Wed Jan 24, 07 1:38pm [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
Biased science is not science. But then, I'm going to take any news service that was founded as the "Conservative News Service" with just as large a grain of salt as I would scientific organizations biased to the left.

by himself809 on Wed Jan 24, 07 5:40pm [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
Which disturbs me, considering the concerted right-wing effort *against* these scientists.

by Truthseeker013 on Wed Jan 24, 07 6:09pm [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
I am concerned if it is politically biased in any direction.

by xxxxxxxx on Thu Jan 25, 07 1:19am [+]

Voted : Yes, I am just as concerned, science shouldn't be politically biased
But I am not surprised.

by thc2883 on Thu Jan 25, 07 8:24am [+]

More than half (69%) aren't concerned about liberal bias in scientific research, does this explain perfectly the unquestioning support many have for any and all research that supports their manmade global warming theories?

by herzog on Sat Jan 27, 07 12:12pm [+]

is it now wrong to find things that are beneficial to everyone and everything?

by neothe1 on Tue Jan 30, 07 10:32am [+]

"Science shouldn't be political"

and it's not. it's logical. unfortunately for you, logic is left wing.

by neothe1 on Tue Jan 30, 07 10:33am [+]

About Us | Join Us | Privacy Policy |