Scientists Accuse White House of Distorting Facts

[Defiant]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara


It's pretty straight forward. The Administration altered data to favour a pactice of oil drilling which carries a hazard of polluting drinking water supplies with benzene, a very dangerous chemical. "The leading provider of hydraulic fracturing is the energy company Halliburton" The EPA altered a report to say that the practice won't pollute drinking water more than Federal guidlines allow.

Plain and simple would the drilling stay within Federal guidlines? That should be easy enough to check out, shouldn't it. How many parts per million is dangerous or not.

[Agathon]

It's no surprise. This administration has been in fundamentalist disagreement with reality from day one.

Someone said that the usual method is to proceed from evidence to theory, Bush does just the opposite - if it doesn't fit his theory evidence be damned.

Here's hoping the good citizens of the USA do the right thing and get rid of these losers.

[Dauphin]

Originally posted by Defiant


Plain and simple would the drilling stay within Federal guidlines? That should be easy enough to check out, shouldn't it. How many parts per million is dangerous or not.

The EPA report said it wouldn't. Then after going before congressional staff, they said it would.

It appears not so plain and simple.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Big Crunch


The EPA report said it wouldn't. Then after going before congressional staff, they said it would.

It appears not so plain and simple.

Agreed, but what, technically, is the right answer, if the EPA changed it for a scientific reason, it would appear legit, if they changed to a number that all scientists would say is bullsh!t, then you have a point, that is why I am asking the question.

[Sava]

Originally posted by Defiant


Agreed, but what, technically, is the right answer, if the EPA changed it for a scientific reason, it would appear legit, if they changed to a number that all scientists would say is bullsh!t, then you have a point, that is why I am asking the question.

the Bush admin manipulated the data...

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
What does this have to do with the Bush administrations PROVEN distortion and manipulation of data?

given 10-20 interceptors with the current test success rate(5/8 even though they know the issues that lead to the failure of the three), we could stop definately stop a few missiles from NK. Notice that Wolfowitz said 90% success rate vs total completion of the system mentioned by said expert. by the end of the year we will have a few interceptors and much of the radar we will need in place, it has all been tested.

Also you won't win browny points with RU-486 being stopped for testing, this drug has killed people(not including those it was intended to kill of course).

[Defiant]

http://www.acq.osd.mil/bmdo/

January 27, 2004


MISSILE DEFENSE BOOSTER TEST IS SUCCESSFUL


The Missile Defense Agency (MDA) announced today the completion last night of another successful flight test involving a new booster rocket designed to support the Ground-based Midcourse Defense (GMD) system to intercept and destroy long-range ballistic missiles of the type that could be aimed at any of our 50 states. This was a test of the primary booster to be fielded with the GMD system later this year, and included measurement of booster performance and the participation of an integrated architecture designed to detect and track a target missile, launch the interceptor missile, and provide detailed target identification, tracking and communication to the interceptor missile. No intercept took place, as the target missile was simulated for this test.


Integrated Flight Test -13b (IFT-13b) included the second successful launch of an Orbital Sciences boost vehicle with an instrumented payload (simulated exoatmospheric kill vehicle) from the Reagan Test Site, Kwajalein Atoll, Republic of the Marshall Islands, in the central Pacific Ocean.

The booster rocket lifted off last night (Jan. 26) at 9:22 p.m. EST (2:22 p.m. Jan. 27 Kwajalein time), and flew to a simulated intercept point approximately 800 miles downrange and to an altitude of approximately 170 miles above the earth. Initial analysis shows that booster performance was nominal, in that it was within design parameters and that payload separation was successful. Program officials will begin an extensive post-test review to determine precise booster performance parameters.


IFT-13b demonstrated several new system capabilities necessary for the successful operation of the GMD system, including the GMD fire control/communication nodes (GFC/C) located at the Joint National Integration Center (JNIC) in Colorado Springs, Colo. and the Reagan Test Site. The GFC at the Reagan Test Site issued the weapon task plan, which plans and directs the interceptor missile to place it in the path of a target missile to effect a "hit to kill" intercept, using only the force of the direct collision with the missile's warhead to destroy it.


-MORE-



This test also included for the first time participation of military personnel within the Cheyenne Mountain (Colo.) Operations Center and the space-based infrared system test node in Colorado to simulate early warning and tracking information about the simulated target. The In-Flight Interceptor Communications System (IFICS) at the Reagan Test Site was used to relay target information directly to the interceptor. In an actual intercept test, this would transmit integrated tracking and target location information to the exoatmospheric kill vehicle (EKV), which is the interceptor component that actually collides with the target warhead.

Several additional ground and flight tests are planned for this year, including at least two intercept tests. Up to 10 interceptors are planned to be deployed this year at Ft. Greely, Alaska (up to six interceptors) and at Vandenberg Air Force Base, Calif. (up to four interceptors) to provide a defensive capability against a long-range missile attack on the United States. Up to 10 additional interceptors are planned to be fielded at Ft. Greely by the end of 2005.

Again, I don't know what you mean by not feasible, looks like it is working however, looks like it won't be ready until 2005, not a lie, a miscalculation, or what is wrong with this article.
Test fired on 1-27-04 only a couple of weeks ago.

[Berzerker]

Waddya expect? These are the same people who insist marijuana has no medicinal properties...

[Sava]

Originally posted by Whoha


given 10-20 interceptors with the current test success rate(5/8 even though they know the issues that lead to the failure of the three), we could stop definately stop a few missiles from NK. Notice that Wolfowitz said 90% success rate vs total completion of the system mentioned by said expert. by the end of the year we will have a few interceptors and much of the radar we will need in place, it has all been tested.

Also you won't win browny points with RU-486 being stopped for testing, this drug has killed people(not including those it was intended to kill of course).

you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Berzerker
Waddya expect? These are the same people who insist marijuana has no medicinal properties...

Go away Berzerker.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by Sava
you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

Sava,
IF it is working, MDS, where did he distort facts, are you splitting hairs and I am not just seeing it?

[Whoha]

Originally posted by Sava
you are trying to create a red-herring

the focus of this thread: White House Distorting Facts...

I've presented evidence to support this... so far the only opposition I've heard is, "blah the NYTimes is biased".

fine, they are biased... but they are still right.

Defiant: you still are missing the point... the White House manipulated the official data for their own purposes.

I'm not here to debate the viability of missile defense... or the effectiveness of some drug... I'm giving specific examples of how the Bush administration has lied, manipulated data, and appointed unqualified ideological dopes to positions of considerable policy power.

I'm not saying that anyone is biased or wrong, I'm saying that they said different things.

[chequita guevara]

Oh god, not this crap again. With the exception of the lasers, the only GBMD's to succeed at their tests were masively hceating (as proof a concept). Radar tracking was outbound, rather than in bound, and the target was made extra easy to hit. This proves that given enough time and research, such a system might work, but it's not anywhere near ready for deployment, which the Bushies started doing a while ago.

[Defiant]

Originally posted by chegitz guevara
Oh god, not this crap again. With the exception of the lasers, the only GBMD's to succeed at their tests were masively hceating (as proof a concept). Radar tracking was outbound, rather than in bound, and the target was made extra easy to hit. This proves that given enough time and research, such a system might work, but it's not anywhere near ready for deployment, which the Bushies started doing a while ago.

Not that I don't believe you, but do you have an article on this I can read.

[GePap]

On every test of the system, the guys running the interceptors knew exactly were the enemy missile was coming (and what kind it was), its always done in good weather (at both sites, launch and interceptor site), its always the same test..and they still have not gotten to 100%.....