posted December 14, 2006 06:07 PM            

Life or death is different than me just disagreeing on the policy. I've had to deal with gov policies enough to know when to fight and when not to. Working in public health and being in the public eye on various cases was tough, especially when I wanted to say "Hey, don't date that girl, she has herpes" because I ran the infectious disease database- but I COULDN'T.

My database information could never be released. I just had to track clusters.

It is difficult and not for everyone. Like I said earlier, I didn't like the policies at the University concerning their research-but I understood the policies in bioterrorism / public health.

****Edited to add*** they only acted on my findings after we had 20 more cases and two more months went by.

I am more persuasive than others. You would be amazed at how much the public does not know about what is going on.

For example, how many outbreaks of bacterial infections people contract from restaurants, how fast sexually transmitted diseases spread and where the hotspots are... on and on...

due to policy it is not told to the public for quite awhile.

HIV is the perfect example. Researchers were beginning to question the ability of the virus to be transmitted through blood. The CDC held off because they did not want to cause a stir. Scientists broke ranks and resigned, especially AFTER people started becoming positive after receiving transfusions. Medical personnel started to get sick from exposure during surgery from the fine mist of blood.

Finally, after others (the ones that broke rank) resigned and blew the whistle- the CDC came out with new findings.

I really wasn't going to comment on this article because I felt it was boring (sorry) but since I called into it I felt compelled....

posted December 14, 2006 06:15 PM            

"New rules require screening of all facts and interpretations by agency scientists who study everything from caribou mating to global warming. The rules apply to all scientific papers and other public documents, even minor reports or prepared talks, according to documents obtained by The Associated Press.
"

I absolutely don't see a problem with this. It's called peer review and science should stand up to the strictest of measures or it fails to be science.

A study must be based on facts and reproducible or it is not valid. Quickly producing a study based on the observation of a small sample does not produce accurate results. I think that is the main problem. Some science has become "quick and dirty". Where a scientist does a few runs and calls it good.

posted December 14, 2006 06:20 PM            

quote:

---

A study must be based on facts and reproducible or it is not valid. Quickly producing a study based on the observation of a small sample does not produce accurate results. I think that is the main problem. Some science has become "quick and dirty". Where a scientist does a few runs and calls it good.

---

posted December 14, 2006 06:28 PM            

Most major research results come from the private sector...in virtually every field. They don't come from federal government scientists.

You're just unhappy the global warming baloney is blowing up in crackpot scientists faces...many of whom work for the federal government...or in federally funded research programs.

Even the utterly incompetent UN has now recognized the models and science used to promote their political agenda is flawed.

posted December 14, 2006 06:33 PM            

I know things that would make your head spin... (shhhhhhhhhh... don't tell anyone, it will be our secret).

LMAO.....

posted December 14, 2006 06:35 PM              

quote:

---

Unfortunately, most of them are the kind of hack scientists who can't cut it in the business world or private research. They are, and should be considered third rate and not the kind of top flight research scientists anyone should be listening to.--jwhop

---

posted December 14, 2006 06:43 PM            

LOL..... I spent 3 times as long working for the private biotech company as I did with all my time in service as a government scientist.

In fact, in all my years of working I have spent less than 20% of my time in government and even attended a private university versus a public giant.

posted December 14, 2006 06:51 PM            

quote:

---

You're just unhappy the global warming baloney is blowing up in crackpot scientists faces...many of whom work for the federal government...or in federally funded research programs.

---

Have you seen the news lately? In 0.42 seconds Google comes up with 18,276 news articles on Global Warming. That's not even considering the changed name of "Climate Change". That's an awful lot of ongoing talk about an "imaginary" problem if you ask me.

Headlines?

England records hottest year in 347 years — scientists blame global warming
Global warming threatens Alpine ski resorts
Impact of global warming worries govt, study on
Airport growth backed despite global warming
Global warming? Just read this

But hey... stick with your gut.

posted December 14, 2006 07:01 PM              

i would imagine alot of the 10,000 scientists, technicians and support staff working for the USGS work or have worked in a variety of positions, private and governmental.....
i think it will be more difficult now to give public lectures as a professor, or publish papers for the pew institute, if his scientific conclusions dont support official administration policies.....

posted December 14, 2006 07:03 PM            

Petron......

Who do you think I work for? I think one only needs to look at my profile and determine that I am work for the government- but not as a scientist. Education is a weirdness unto itself... I swear, I can't stand going to these lame meetings where we use poster paper and smelly markers to track how well our damn professional development is heading LOL... What ever happened to real dry lectures? I don't want to break out in groups with post it notes.

I gotta run.. and pack... and get a move on...

posted December 14, 2006 07:08 PM            

quote:

---

I swear, I can't stand going to these lame meetings where we use poster paper and smelly markers to track how well our damn professional development is heading LOL

---

posted December 14, 2006 07:19 PM            

As for the rest of the BS, the UN has had to revise their forecasts downward to the lower end of the scale they had fabricated. In time there will be further downward projections of temperature and sea level rises associated with the baloney of global warming....as a face saving measure. One shouldn't expect them to simply say.."we were wrong", now should one!

Some seem to think a high volume of articles written by bone headed..so called journalists proves the point of global warming.

Count me out of that belief system. It's always "quality" over "quantity" every time.

posted December 14, 2006 07:33 PM            

quote:

---

As for the rest of the BS, the UN has had to revise their forecasts downward to the lower end of the scale they had fabricated. In time there will be further downward projections of temperature and sea level rises associated with the baloney of global warming....as a face saving measure.

---

The UN cleraly stated in its report and I quote:

quote:

---

Sea level change is difficult to measure. Relative sea level changes have been derived mainly from tide-gauge data. In the conventional tide-gauge system, the sea level is measured relative to a land-based tide-gauge benchmark. The major problem is that the land experiences vertical movements (e.g. from isostatic effects, neotectonism, and sedimentation), and these get incorporated into the measurements. However, improved methods of filtering out the effects of long-term vertical land movements, as well as a greater reliance on the longest tide-gauge records for estimating trends, have provided greater confidence that the volume of ocean water has indeed been increasing, causing the sea level to rise within the given range.

---

posted December 14, 2006 07:48 PM            

The UN and all it's checkist bureaucrats couldn't find their as$es with both hands.

They did revise their forecast downward both as to temperature rises and sea level rises.

Long story short. The UN is attempting to gain control over the use of energy worldwide and the global warming hoax was their vehicle via the Kyoto Treaty to do so.

In time, there will be further revisions downward but don't expect to see any apology for stirring up a world wide hysteria over a hoax.

posted December 14, 2006 07:59 PM            

I'm a conservative. If you've got anything in your tank show me. I'm not into Kumbaya and obtuse arguments leave me cold.

I already know the UN is the most corrupt organization that has ever existed on Earth; unable to perform even it's most basic stated function.

posted December 14, 2006 08:10 PM            

Immaturity as defination puts it descibes those who haven't "Fully developed" yet. You want better economic gain? Fine; Globilization and that means Global bodies looking over such treaties and actions. You want pure facts? Fine. Stop thowing in restrictive forces like political filters. You're quick to critisize govenmental sanctioned scientists yet so blatenly left out facts such as:

"Marketing monopolies are also inefficient. Only a small fraction of the high prices is reinvested in research and development, and most of this on non-innovative ‘me too’ products for chronic diseases that afflict high-income patients. Very little private R&D is invested in basic research, public goods such as the Human Genome Project (HGP) or Medline, the development
of vaccines, or higher priority medicines, such as new treatments for malaria. Higher IPR protection for products is also associated with a number of other problems, including excessive secrecy and anti-competitive barriers to follow-on innovation."

posted December 15, 2006 01:19 PM              

Tell me about it. Just look at the oil for food program.

and look at all the stuff going on the in the world today.

I'd put Bush first then the U.N as the most corrupt on my list.