Posted on 12/14/2006 1:22:58 AM PST by kipita
Not just a lie, a damned lie.
He was not put "under pressure not to talk to the media on global warming issues." He was ordered, flat out, to stop lying about NASA's position and conclusions as an agency. Hansen was claiming that he was making official statements of documented NASA conclusions when what he was doing was putting forward his own opinions as if they were agency policy. He was told he could talk all he wanted about his conclusions, but he was not authorized to speak on behalf of NASA or the US Government or say they they were the official NASA position. He also was urged to stop saying that his unsubstantiated opinions were fact proved by NASA studies. The studies he cited as proving his personal conclusions did include the data he cited, but they also included data that contradicted his conclusions. He chose to ignore those inconvenient facts and the other NASA researchers who challenged his conclusions and attempted to railroad through his politically motivated agenda under the guise of scientific method. When he got caught he screamed censorship.
There's a huge difference. This guy has more in common with the 6 flying Imams and the organization promoting this propaganda is using tactics suspiciously like CAIR.
It isn't just 'funding'motivated - even scientists in the private sector get the political bug. One of IBM's chief scientists was born in Cuba, came to the US in his teens (now in his late 50's early 60's) and proudly proclaims he identifies with and is more Cuban than American - AND he identifies with the Cubans in control of the island not the anti-Communist community.
The comments on this post make me think they have a point, unfortunately.
This is one of the funniest jokes I've heard all year! You're joking right? I hope so.
THEY ARE REJECTING GOVERNMENT FUNDING??????????????
Some do. America's past worldwide leadership in science and engineering is over at the science and engineering level, the governmental support level, the university level, the political level and with the masses as well. Congratulations!
Ben Franklin never said 'A Democracy' - because we ain't one. He said 'A Republic' - because that's what we are.
A REPUBLIC, if you can keep it.
THAT is what franklin said.
The Union of Concerned Scientists wanted the USA to surrender to the USSR.
They said star wars would never work and now whe have jet mounted laser weapons.
They said a lot of political garbage and they themselves are censors.
Does that mean that they don't want to fill out any more intrusive applications for federal grant money?
I love the comparison.
1970s: Business (wrong): smoking doesn't cause cancer. Scientist (right): smoking causes cancer.
1980s: Scientist (right): Stars Wars will PROBABLY not work (don't waste money). Government (right): We don't care if it works, we just want to bankrupt the USSR.
1990s: Global Warming???: Let's let the politicians and business community decide.
2000: Iraq WMDs: Let's let the politicians and business community decide.
2000: Avain Flu: Help Roche (Europe)!
For all the people who are so critical of science, why don't you empty your medicine cabinet, get rid of all the plastics and comforts of your home, forget about electricity and running water, and go live in nature. When the next black Plague arrives, go to the politicians and business community for help.
As an offshoot of the political correctness in science, Ben Franklin would not be allowed to fly his kite in a thunderstorm. There are similar intellectual risks that are not taken to stay within the herd and get the grant money. The worse problem which the global warmers would deny, is that the political correctness predetermines the results (e.g. no matter what happens it's due to global warming). I think Ben would be more comfortable inventing something useful and selling it to the masses.
I think he would be a lawyer or MBA or something else. US scientist are not very happy people and haven't been for some time. I was a Mass Spectrometry expert (identifying unknown compounds) and attended training from some of America's best. Over a period of 15 years, I knew very few happy scientist. It is also very difficult for scientist to be political. One seasoned Havard PhD told me, "you're young, the best thing you could do is marry into a good family, forget about science, and tell you friends and family to never study science". It was the best advice in my life. I told my family I would disown anyone who studies science or even engineering. So, as you can see, I just blog to "blow off steam" because I know the sentiment amongst US scientist.
Careful here - as I'm sure you're aware, correlation still doesn't equal causation - That part of the scientific process hasn't changed. While there is a strong correlation between smoking and cancer, there's still no proven causative relationship.
For all the people who are so critical of science, why don't you empty your medicine cabinet, get rid of all the plastics and comforts of your home, forget about electricity and running water, and go live in nature. When the next black Plague arrives, go to the politicians and business community for help.
I don't think anyone's against science or scientists, it's just that they've been bombarded by so much garbage disguised at science, and the resulting laws and regulations, that they become immune to all of it.
Personally, I don't think science and policital law have any business being associated. Science should be the purview of private business only. If there's a need for a particular area of research, there's some private firm either already in existence, or waiting to be formed, that will fund it. The way it works now, we have billions and billions of government dollars being poured into research to justify the existence of laws or regulations put in place by one party or another, at the expense of another party. The science isn't important, the results are. In the end, you have scientists who operate like many cops - They have a desired outcome (suspect), so they ignore or buff out any evidence to the contrary.
A perfect example of this in action is the DDT debacle. It is now known that much of the "science" used to justify the FDA ban on the chemical compound was junk. However, the meme of "DDT = bad" is so ingrained that there is little chance the ban will ever be lifted. How many lives have been lost worldwide due to mosquito-borne malaria thanks to the banning of this compound based on junk science? The mind boggles.
Col Sanders
Actually, it's a republic, if you can keep it, FRiend.
I'm a happy applied engineer so probably not a good example. My sister applies Mass Spectrometry and teaches it at a junior college. She is very satisfied applying the science, perhaps some of your own. But her satisfaction may not translate into any rewards at your level. For that you can thank politics which drains resources from productive enterprises like the company my sister works for to give to politically favored scientists who perform as expected, politically.
Okay, the scientist stated that there was a strong correlation. The CEOs still lied to Congress.
A perfect example of this in action is the DDT debacle. It is now known that much of the "science" used to justify the FDA ban on the chemical compound was junk. However, the meme of "DDT = bad" is so ingrained that there is little chance the ban will ever be lifted. How many lives have been lost worldwide due to mosquito-borne malaria thanks to the banning of this compound based on junk science? The mind boggles.
Environmental Risk Assessment (not science) is very easy to understand at a chemical level. If 1 person out of a million develops cancer, then this risk is acceptable. Therefore, environmental labs test for compounds at that level in the environment. If it costs too much for pre-treatment (for example THMs in drinking water), then the acceptable risk is 1 in a thousand. DDT is amoung thousands of chemicals that are regulated at one in a million. The fact that its ban caused the deaths of millions is one of policy makers, which includes more non-scientist then scientist. BTW, environmental analytical chemist (science) are the least involved, least respected and therefore lowest paid professionals in the junk-science that is environmental. Moreover, US Federal Projects are performed using Superfund "lawyer science", not analytical science. So, all scientist are not the same but all seem to be vilified. Meanwhile, the "if it doesn't fit you must acquit" guys are American heros.
The thanks should go to ex-scientist who are lawyers or work for law firms. Special thanks should also go to the business community and politicans who steadily increase the number of H-type-Visas (supposedly because there are few qualified American scientist) for cheap "intellectual labor".
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.