https://powerbase.info/api.php?action=feedcontributions&feedformat=atom&user=Elaine+StrachanPowerbase - User contributions [en]2026-09-22T22:17:16ZUser contributionsMediaWiki 1.35.14https://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116999Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-23T18:10:18Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However,as will be seen, STATS has continually tried to discredit findings which highlight the threat of climate change. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> However, the hypocrisy is that STATS employs the very same tactics that it finds so intolerable.<ref>D. Appell (2 July 2002) ‘It’s Ain’t Necessarily Spo’ in Salon. Com </ref><br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs and George Mason University=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref> STATS is also linked to the George Mason University which has recieved over $255,000 funding from ExxonMobil since 1998. <ref>ExxonSecrets.org,'Factsheet: George Mason University'.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=37. Accessed 23/04/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Tom Harris (12 February 2002) 'The dogma of global warming, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada.</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma of global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS.'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html. Accessed 21/02/10</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne.'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne. 'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm]. Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116997Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-23T18:08:51Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However,as will be seen, STATS has continually tried to discredit findings which highlight the threat of climate change. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> However, the hypocrisy is that STATS employs the very same tactics that it finds so intolerable.<ref>D. Appell (2 July 2002) ‘It’s Ain’t Necessarily Spo’ in Salon. Com </ref><br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs and George Mason University=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref> STATS is also linked to the George Mason University which has recieved over $255,000 funding from ExxonMobil since 1998. <ref>ExxonSecrets.org,'Factsheer, George Mason University'.http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=37. Accessed 23/04/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Tom Harris (12 February 2002) 'The dogma of global warming, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada.</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma of global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS.'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html. Accessed 21/02/10</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne.'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne. 'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm]. Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116262Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T14:57:08Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However,as will be seen, STATS has continually tried to discredit findings which highlight the threat of climate change. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> However, the hypocrisy is that STATS employs the very same tactics that it finds so intolerable.<ref>D. Appell (2 July 2002) ‘It’s Ain’t Necessarily Spo’ in Salon. Com </ref><br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Tom Harris (12 February 2002) 'The dogma of global warming, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada.</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma of global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS.'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html. Accessed 21/02/10</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne.'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne. 'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm]. Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116261Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T14:52:02Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However,as will be seen, STATS has continually tried to discredit findings which highlight the threat of climate change. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Tom Harris (12 February 2002) 'The dogma of global warming, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada.</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma of global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS.'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html. Accessed 21/02/10</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne.'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne. 'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm]. Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116194Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T12:29:06Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Tom Harris (12 February 2002) 'The dogma of global warming, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada.</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma of global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS.'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'. http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html. Accessed 21/02/10</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne.'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne. 'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming'.http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm]. Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116189Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T12:22:55Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(30 August 2009) 'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz' in Charleston Gazette. Accessed 23/02/10</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger. 'Watchdog advocates for BPA'. http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html. Accessed 19/02/10</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency. 'Statistical Assessment Service'. http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders. Accessed 21.02/10</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (10 Jan 1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood.'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'. http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html. Accessed 20/02/10</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Harris, T</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma opf global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116185Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T12:17:46Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, http://stats.org/about.html. Accessed 15/03/10</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS,http://www.stats.org Home page. Accessed 20/02/10 </ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Harris, T</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma opf global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116182Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T12:07:00Z<p>Elaine Strachan: /* Publications */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Harris, T</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma opf global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the “wording creates a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment. Consider an agency that contains 10 scientists. One tells the other nine that he has encountered interference. When they are surveyed, all ten report that they have "perceived in others and/or personally experienced" interference.” <ref>R. Lichter. (6 February 2007)http://stats.org/stories/2007/cooking_global_warm_survey_feb05_07.htm. Accessed 19/04/10</ref> . <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116170Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T11:16:12Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref>. Therefore, consumers researching BPA on the internet may find studies which pose as independent information are actually written by chemical industry public relations writers and these allegiances are not always explained. An example of this can be seen as Trevor Butterworth, Senior Fellow and editor of STATS.org and linked to the BPA industry, has defended BPA greatly in his blogs and he regularly combs the internet for stories about BPA and offers comments. <ref> M. Kissinger (23 August 2009) ‘Chemical fallout, a journal sentinel watchdog report-BPA industry fights back’ in Milwaukee Journal Sentinel</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Harris, T</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma opf global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the wording of the study was flawed as the wording created ‘a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment’. <ref> M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=116169Statistical Assessment Service2010-04-21T11:12:55Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
STATS stress that the media’s coverage of climate change continue to report far more on findings that confirm warming worries then research that doubts it. <ref>Harris, T</ref> STATS concludes that the danger in ignoring such studies is that “conventional wisdom” about global warming may develop amoung journalists which is flawed or myopic.<ref>Tom Harris (12 Feb 2002) 'The dogma opf global, CO2 link with climate change is still uncertain' in The Hamilton Speculator, Canada</ref><br />
<br />
The STATS president, Dr Robert Lichter released a study called ‘Cooking the Books on Global Warming? Or Overheating a Bad Survey?’ which commented on the study carried out by the Union of Concerned Scientists on the political interference with government climate scientists. The study showed that there was a high level of interference and widespread political pressure being put on climate experts to downplay the threat posed by global warming <ref>M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. Lichter states that there were many shortcoming of the study as the response rate was low with only 17% of those asked responding to the study. The STATS president also argues that the wording of the study was flawed as the wording created ‘a statistical phenomenon that artificially inflates the impression of a hostile work environment’. <ref> M. Felling (6 February 2007)'News of Survey, Finding Political Pressure on Climatologists Misleading' in Ascribe Newswire</ref>. <br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=111387Statistical Assessment Service2010-03-15T11:57:22Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of their 'companies' by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opinion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companies such as ExxonMobil.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=111386Statistical Assessment Service2010-03-15T11:54:00Z<p>Elaine Strachan: /* Publications */</p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda as they are both keen to deny manmade climate change due to the funding of thier companies by corporations such as ExxonMobile whom would suffer if mass opionion regarded climate change as a problem which must be solved through the control of companied such as Exxon Mobile.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=111385Statistical Assessment Service2010-03-15T11:45:52Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS, as it is known, states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity. The STATS website states that ‘Since its founding in 1994, the non-profit, non-partisan Statistical Assessment Service - STATS - has become a much-valued resource on the use and abuse of science and statistics in the media. Our goals are to correct scientific misinformation in the media and in public policy resulting from bad science, politics, or a simple lack of information or knowledge; and to act as a resource for journalists and policy makers on major scientific issues and controversies. In 2004, we became an affiliate of George Mason University in Virginia.’<ref>STATS, [http://stats.org/about.htm],accessed 15 March 2010</ref> However, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the [[Center for Media and Public Affairs]] (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the [[John M. Olin Foundation]], [[Sarah Scaife Foundation]], [[William H. Donner Foundation]], [[Richard Mellon Scaife]]'s [[Carthage Foundation]], Earhart Foundation, and the [[Castle Rock Foundation]].<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from [[ExxonMobil]], a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS), who stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environmental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda.<br />
<br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109512Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T13:06:28Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS as it is known states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> It is stated that professors, activists and interest groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will ultimately lead to an influence on public opinion in their favour. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109511Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:58:27Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS as it is known states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises, the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109509Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:55:50Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS as it is known states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
<br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
<br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
<br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109508Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:54:26Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS as it is known states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
=People=<br />
President- S. Robert Lichter. Has a Ph.D. in government from Harvard University and a B.A., summa cum laude from the University of Minnesota. He is also the Professor of Communication at George Mason University and President of the Center for Media and Public Affairs. <br />
Executive Director- Donald Rieck. His expertise lies in strategic management and economic analysis. Previously, Rieck was a senior project manager at Comcast Corporation in Philadelphia for several years. <br />
Director of Research- Rebecca Goldin. <br />
Senior Fellow - Maia Szalavitz<br />
Senior Fellow- Dr. Stephen Rose<br />
Senior Fellow and Editor of STATS.org- Trevor Butterworth<br />
Advisory Board include; Thomas C. Childers (Professor of History, University of Pennsylvania), Wolfgang Donsbach (President, World Association of Opinion Research), Nicholas Eberstadt (Fellow Center for Population Studies, Harvard University), Neil Gilbert (Professor of Social Welfare, University of California Berkeley), Scott O. Lilienfeld (Professor of Psychology Emory University), Elisabeth Noelle-Neumann (President, Allensbach Institut fur Demoskopie), Nelson Polsby (Director, Institute of Government Studies<br />
University of California Berkeley), Harrison Pope (Director, Biological Psychiatry Laboratory,Harvard Medical School), Stephen Strauss (Toronto Globe and Mail), Humphrey Taylor(CEO & President Louis Harris and Associates) and James Q. Wilson (Professor of Political Science). <ref> STATS Staff, [ http://stats.org/about_staff.htm] Accessed 25 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109507Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:34:42Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>The Statistical Assessment Service, or STATS as it is known states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109506Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:33:34Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
=Links with the Center for Media and Public Affairs=<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
=Funding=<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
=Publications=<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109505Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:31:18Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
<br />
Although STATS states that it is an independent and non partisan organisation, it is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This was largely in reaction to the findings of the Union of Concerned Scientist (UCS)whom stated that the Bush administration engaged in 'wide-ranging political interference in research related to global warming'.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref> STATS state that the conclusions drawn from the survey by the UCS have a great bias as those who took the time to return the questionaire were likely to be the individuals who feel the most upset about 'percieved' interference.<ref> John Distaso (25 July, 2007) 'Just how much hotter is it?' in The Union Leader</ref> <br />
<br />
A publication called 'It Ain't Necessarily So' by David Murray, Joel Schwartz and S.Robert Lichter stated that in the highly publicised studies relating to global warming, hunger, discriminating in lending and other environemental crises that the information being produced and transmitted 'ain't necessarily so' and that America is on the verge of an information meltdown where the public is overwhelmed.<ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> They state that professors, activists and interests groups know that by conducting a study that has an aura of research and serious scholarship will influecne public opionion. <ref>Jim Wooten (12 February, 2002) 'Groups shape studies to meet thier agendas' in The Atlantic Journal Constitution.</ref> However, David Murray was the director of the Statistical Assessment Service and Lichter the president of the Center for Media and Public Affairs, and so they clearly have an agenda. <br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109499Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-25T12:08:51Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<<ref>STATS, [http://www.stats.org Home page],accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> <br />
It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109245Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:32:39Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref>STATS[http://stats.org/stories/2008/global_warming_survey_apr23_08.html ]'Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change'<br />
accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109243Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:28:23Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(August 30,2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'in Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109242Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:27:00Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 1994 it received $75,000 from the John M. Olin Foundation and the same amount again in 1995 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation.<ref>Louis Jacobson (Jan 10,1998)'Armed With STATS'in The National Journal</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109239Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:20:46Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust(2009)'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'Charleston Gazette accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109238Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:19:04Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Meg Kissinger and Susanne Rust'Plastics industry fights back with PR blitz'<br />
accessed 23 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109237Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T13:10:29Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service' accessed 21 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109233Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T12:56:22Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[ http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service' accessed 21 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref>Conservative Transparency[http://mediamattersaction.org/transparency/organization/Statistical_Assessment_Service/funders ]'statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109197Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T12:30:44Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[ http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service' accessed 21 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]'Bad Research, Worse Reporting on Global Warming' accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109176Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T12:22:58Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[ http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010</ref> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service' accessed 21 February 2010</ref> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger[http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html ]'Watchdog' advocates for BPA' accessed 19 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch[http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html ]'Feds Launch New Study of BPA Safety, Industry Critics Blast Consumer Reports Study'accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service ]'Statistical Assessment Service'accessed 21 February 2010</ref> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]' accesses 20 February 2010</ref><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<br />
<ref>Dennis Byrne[http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]accessed 20 February 2010</ref><br />
<br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=109111Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-23T11:34:51Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>STATS states that it is a disinterested, non-partisan guardian of scientific and statistical integrity, however, from the outset, STATS has continually attacked libertarians, feminists and environmentalists. The organisation states that it ‘monitors the media to expose the abuse of science and statistics before people are misled and public policy is distorted’.<ref>STATS[ http://www.stats.org ]accessed 20 Febuary 2010<ref/> It is a sister organization of the Center for Media and Public Affairs (CMPA).<ref>Sourcewatch [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service] accessed 21 February 2010<ref/> The CMPA has been linked to dubious funding, as the tobacco industry funded the organisation to monitor news stories which supported the dangers of tobacco.<ref> Susanne Rust and Meg Kissinger [ http://www.jsonline.com/watchdog/watchdogreports/54195302.html] accessed 19 February 2010<ref/><br />
<br />
Media Transparency identified STATS as having gained 34 grants totaling $1,925,000 (unadjusted for inflation) between 1995 and 2005 from conservative funders such as the John M. Olin Foundation, Sarah Scaife Foundation,William H. Donner Foundation,Richard Mellon Scaife's Carthage Foundation,Sarah Scaife Foundation, Earhart Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Castle Rock Foundation.<ref> Sourcewatch [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service] accessed 21 February 2010<ref/> It is clear that STATS relies on funding from these conservative groups as in 2005 it received $100,000 from the Sarah Scaife Foundation which made the foundation STATS’s sole supporter that year.<ref> Sourcewatch [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service] accessed 21 February 2010<ref/> This occurrence of conservative funding, especially from sources which promote deregulation, highlight the corruption that is involved within this organisation. <br />
STATS has also received funding from ExxonMobil, a major producer of benzene which is one ingredient used in the manufacturing process of Bisphenol A (BPA) and maker of plastic food packaging film. STATS has been supporting claims of BPA safety and criticising media articles that express concern over BPA human exposure and wellbeing.<ref> James R. Hood[ http://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2009/11/cr_bpa2.html] accessed 20 February 2010<ref/><br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
In 2008, STATS released a study, entitled "Climate Scientists Agree on Warming, Disagree on Dangers, and Don’t Trust the Media’s Coverage of Climate Change" and was conducted in conjunction with Harris interactive.<ref> Sourcewatch [ http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service] accessed 21 February 2010<ref/> Dr. Francesca Grifo who is the Director of the UCS Scientific Integrity Program has stated that "Tailoring scientific fact for political purposes has become a problem across many federal science agencies."<ref>Dennis Byrne[ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ] accesses 20 February 2010<ref/><br />
The New York Times reported that 60 percent of the scientists "personally experienced" interference. ABC's Jake Tapper said, "scientists say their work on global warming has been watered down and twisted by the White House..." even though such hyperbole is not a conclusion warranted by the survey carried out by STATS.<ref>Dennis Byrne[ http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/02/bad_research_horrendous_report.html ]accessed 20 February 2010<ref/><br />
==Notes== <br />
<references/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Statistical_Assessment_Service&diff=108859Statistical Assessment Service2010-02-22T16:28:09Z<p>Elaine Strachan: New page: Statistical Assessment Service was founded in 1994.</p>
<hr />
<div>Statistical Assessment Service was founded in 1994.</div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation_talk:Frontiers_of_Freedom&diff=108144Globalisation talk:Frontiers of Freedom2010-02-18T19:17:35Z<p>Elaine Strachan: New page: Frontiers of Freedom (FoF) Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. It aims to fight environmental regulations that are viewed as infringing on ...</p>
<hr />
<div>Frontiers of Freedom (FoF)<br />
<br />
Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. It aims to fight environmental regulations that are viewed as infringing on ‘property rights’ and it has become a powerful global warming skeptic organisation which has gone to great lengths to relay their message . <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/> <br />
<br />
The organisation has links to companies such as ExxonMobil, Morris Cos and RJ Reynolds Tobacco which each have clear agendas to support the stance against the threat from global warming. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to FoF and these grants have been used to fund initiatives such as the launching of a new branch organisation called the Centre for Science and Public Policy. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> The centre’s main operation was to discredit the views that stressed that global warming was being caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> <br />
<br />
FoF also oversees five other policy centres. These are; Centre for Constitutional Government, Centre for Economic Liberty and Property Rights, Centre for National Security and Defense, Centre for Free Market, Centre for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress and Centre for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation.<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> The last of these actively promotes industry friendly ‘sound science’.<ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
<br />
The FoF organisation has also been linked to tobacco companies, as in 1996 FoF’s Jeff Taylor asked Alexander Spears of Lorillard Tobacco Company for solicit funding in a memo. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
<br />
FoF has links to the Bush administration and their obvious support of the U.S. government withdrawing from Kyoto have highlighted their strong affiliation to a conservative outlook. The organisation has apparently received grants from conservative foundations which include that of; the Earhart Foundation, Carthage Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
<br />
The FoF also operates several associated websites including OpionionEditorial.com and SpinFreeNews.com. <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
<br />
This quote highlights the stance which FoF has taken regarding global warming; "Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events. A more appropriate response to potential climate change is the production and employment of resources toward meaningful adaptation strategies."<ref>Frontiers of Freedom, "Science Hill Watch" 2/2/04 in http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35)<ref/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Frontiers_of_Freedom&diff=108143Globalisation:Frontiers of Freedom2010-02-18T19:16:34Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Frontiers of Freedom (FoF)<br />
<br />
Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. It aims to fight environmental regulations that are viewed as infringing on ‘property rights’ and it has become a powerful global warming skeptic organisation which has gone to great lengths to relay their message . <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/> <br />
The organisation has links to companies such as ExxonMobil, Morris Cos and RJ Reynolds Tobacco which each have clear agendas to support the stance against the threat from global warming. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to FoF and these grants have been used to fund initiatives such as the launching of a new branch organisation called the Centre for Science and Public Policy. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> The centre’s main operation was to discredit the views that stressed that global warming was being caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> <br />
FoF also oversees five other policy centres. These are; Centre for Constitutional Government, Centre for Economic Liberty and Property Rights, Centre for National Security and Defense, Centre for Free Market, Centre for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress and Centre for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation.<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> The last of these actively promotes industry friendly ‘sound science’.<ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
The FoF organisation has also been linked to tobacco companies, as in 1996 FoF’s Jeff Taylor asked Alexander Spears of Lorillard Tobacco Company for solicit funding in a memo. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
FoF has links to the Bush administration and their obvious support of the U.S. government withdrawing from Kyoto have highlighted their strong affiliation to a conservative outlook. The organisation has apparently received grants from conservative foundations which include that of; the Earhart Foundation, Carthage Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
The FoF also operates several associated websites including OpionionEditorial.com and SpinFreeNews.com. <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
This quote highlights the stance which FoF has taken regarding global warming; "Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events. A more appropriate response to potential climate change is the production and employment of resources toward meaningful adaptation strategies."<ref>Frontiers of Freedom, "Science Hill Watch" 2/2/04 in http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35)<ref/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Frontiers_of_Freedom&diff=108142Globalisation:Frontiers of Freedom2010-02-18T19:15:54Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Frontiers of Freedom (FoF)<br />
<br />
Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. It aims to fight environmental regulations that are viewed as infringing on ‘property rights’ and it has become a powerful global warming skeptic organisation which has gone to great lengths to relay their message . <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/> <br />
<br />
The organisation has links to companies such as ExxonMobil, Morris Cos and RJ Reynolds Tobacco which each have clear agendas to support the stance against the threat from global warming. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to FoF and these grants have been used to fund initiatives such as the launching of a new branch organisation called the Centre for Science and Public Policy. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> The centre’s main operation was to discredit the views that stressed that global warming was being caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<ref/> <br />
<br />
FoF also oversees five other policy centres. These are; Centre for Constitutional Government, Centre for Economic Liberty and Property Rights, Centre for National Security and Defense, Centre for Free Market, Centre for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress and Centre for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation.<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> The last of these actively promotes industry friendly ‘sound science’.<ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
<br />
The FoF organisation has also been linked to tobacco companies, as in 1996 FoF’s Jeff Taylor asked Alexander Spears of Lorillard Tobacco Company for solicit funding in a memo. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
<br />
FoF has links to the Bush administration and their obvious support of the U.S. government withdrawing from Kyoto have highlighted their strong affiliation to a conservative outlook. The organisation has apparently received grants from conservative foundations which include that of; the Earhart Foundation, Carthage Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
<br />
The FoF also operates several associated websites including OpionionEditorial.com and SpinFreeNews.com. <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
<br />
This quote highlights the stance which FoF has taken regarding global warming; "Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events. A more appropriate response to potential climate change is the production and employment of resources toward meaningful adaptation strategies."<ref>Frontiers of Freedom, "Science Hill Watch" 2/2/04 in http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35)<ref/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Frontiers_of_Freedom&diff=108136Globalisation:Frontiers of Freedom2010-02-18T18:56:38Z<p>Elaine Strachan: </p>
<hr />
<div>Frontiers of Freedom (FoF)<br />
<br />
Frontiers of Freedom was founded in 1996 by ex-Republican Senator Malcolm Wallop. It aimed to fight environmental regulation which were viewed as infringing on ‘property rights’ and it has become a powerful global warming skeptic organization <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/> which has gone to great lengths to relay their message . <br />
The organization has links to companies such as ExxonMobil, Morris Cos and RJ Reynolds Tobacco <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> which each have clear agendas to support the stance of global warming skeptics. Between 1998 and 2005, ExxonMobil granted $16 million to FoF <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<br />
<ref/> and these grants have been used to fund initiatives such as the launching of a new branch organisation called the Centre for Science and Public Policy. The centre’s main operation was to discredit the views that stressed that global warming was being caused by the increase of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere. <ref>http://www.historycommons.org/entity.jsp?entity=frontiers_of_freedom_1<br />
<ref/> <br />
The institute also oversees five other policy centres. These are; Centre for Constitutional Government, Centre for Economic Liberty and Property Rights, Centre for National Security and Defense, Centre for Free Market, Centre for Civic, Family, and Societal Progress and Centre for Free Market Environmentalism and Conservation.<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom<ref/> The last of these actively promotes industry friendly ‘sound science’.<ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
<br />
The FoF organization has also been linked to tobacco companies, as in 1996 FoF’s Jeff Taylor asked Alexander Spears of Lorillard Tobacco Company for solicit funding in a memo. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
FoF has links to the Bush administration and their obvious support of the U.S. government withdrawing from Kyoto have highlighted their strong affiliation to a conservative outlook. The organization has apparently received grants from conservative foundations which include that of; the Earhart Foundation, Carthage Foundation, John M. Olin Foundation and the Sarah Scaife Foundation. <ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Frontiers_of_Freedom <ref/><br />
The FoF also operates several associated websites including OpionionEditorial.com and SpinFreeNews.com. <ref>http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35<ref/><br />
This quote highlights the stance which FoF has taken regarding global warming; "Climate has always varied, often with large swings...These dramatic climatic ebbs and flows are naturally occurring events. A more appropriate response to potential climate change is the production and employment of resources toward meaningful adaptation strategies."<br />
<ref>Frontiers of Freedom, "Science Hill Watch" 2/2/04 in http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=35)<ref/></div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Globalisation:Frontiers_of_Freedom&diff=108118Globalisation:Frontiers of Freedom2010-02-18T12:26:16Z<p>Elaine Strachan: New page: Founded in 1995 by Malcolm Wallop.</p>
<hr />
<div>Founded in 1995 by Malcolm Wallop.</div>Elaine Strachanhttps://powerbase.info/index.php?title=Talk:Fraser_Institure&diff=107939Talk:Fraser Institure2010-02-16T13:15:35Z<p>Elaine Strachan: New page: An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [1] The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several to...</p>
<hr />
<div>An article by Donald Gutstein of Simon Fraser University examines recent rises in funding for the Fraser Institute. [1]<br />
The Fraser Institute has sought and received funding from several tobacco companies, including Rothmans, British American Tobacco and Philip Morris, according to a 2000 letter found in the tobacco industry documents.[2]<br />
In 2003 Fraser Institute income was $6,620,038. In its annual report it discloses that 52% was from unspecified foundations, 38% from unspecified "organizations" (presumably corporations) and only 10% from individuals.<br />
"During the year, the Institute approached prospective donors to support over 50 specific projects including student seminars, teachers’ workshops, the elementary and secondary school report cards, environmental studies, aboriginal studies, globalization studies, global warming and the Kyoto Protocol, fiscal studies, economic freedom, managing risk and regulation, pharmaceutical and health care studies, CANSTATS, and democratic reform," it states in its 2003 annual report. [3]<br />
While ExxonMobil discloses in it annual statements that it contributed $60,000 to the organisation to work on "Climate Change", the Fraser Institute does not explicitly disclose the contribution. [4]<br />
According to Media Transparency between 1985 and 2003 the Fraser Institute has received 30 grants totalling $ 403,301 (unindexed for inflation) from the following U.S. foundations:<br />
• Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation <br />
• Sarah Scaife Foundation <br />
• Charles G. Koch Family Foundation <br />
• Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation <br />
• John M. Olin Foundation <br />
• Carthage Foundation [5] <br />
<ref>http://www.sourcewatch.org/?title=Fraser_Institute<ref/></div>Elaine Strachan