Perverting science for politics

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Tw, post #85 demonstrates that you are only half bright, in contrast to your much more intelligent work on post #106 in another thread. Whether this is unfortunate or not I will leave to the audience; I suppose such halfbrightness comes of being too much the whore for the Left. You could be better than you are, but you don't want to be. No more comprehensible than it is good, and I sneer at it.

[richlevy]

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Tw, post #85 demonstrates that you are only half bright, in contrast to your much more intelligent work on post #106 in another thread. Whether this is unfortunate or not I will leave to the audience; I suppose such halfbrightness comes of being too much the whore for the Left. You could be better than you are, but you don't want to be. No more comprehensible than it is good, and I sneer at it.

Well, except for the "Stoogers" in there, it seemed coherent to me.

I'll see your sneer and raise you a smirk (with furrowed brow).

[Urbane Guerrilla]

He can write a coherent sentence -- but he has no notion of copyediting and spells only somewhat better than Meriwether Lewis. He desperately wants to be thought of as sage, but the form of his works prevents him being taken seriously -- even as sage brush.

Cum grano -- enough of them to salt pork.

[tw]

CBS 60 Minutes literally put documents on screen complete with White House changes. Science is now taken to the White House for approval. Laywers rewrite science per the party line. No, I did not say Kremlin. Different party. 60 Minutes displayed smoking gun evidence.

I delayed citing this - another classic example of a White House that is so anti-American as to impose politics on science - in hope that others would see and cite this report. Why so much silence? When does science need approval from politicians? When reality does not agree with that political party's agenda.

From 60 Minutes of 19 Mar 2006:

Rewriting The Science
... the administration is censoring what he can say to the public, Hansen says: "Or they're censoring whether or not I can say it. I mean, I say what I believe if I'm allowed to say it." ....

Is it fair to say at this point that humans control the climate? Is that possible?

"There's no doubt about that, says Hansen. "The natural changes, the speed of the natural changes is now dwarfed by the changes that humans are making to the atmosphere and to the surface."

Those human changes, he says, are driven by burning fossil fuels that pump out greenhouse gases like CO2, carbon dioxide.

No sense in quoting the TV report further. Little in the report is new - other than the editted documents themselves. Smoking gun prove that the White House perverts science for a political agenda.

Demonstrated repeatedly are how lawyer types - those who represent political agendas rather than facts - literally pervert science. They change whole meanings of sentences. They literally throw out whole pages that only lawyers would not like. This is the new American science where even Spontaneous Reproduction can be proven if it provides a political purpose.

Meanwhile, CBS News could not interview Hansen without a NASA (political) employee sitting in the room. Just like the Communist Party when a party official also had to be present for every interview. No wonder all those satellite programs on earth studies got canceled - see this report from ABC News . They might discover the party science is wrong. That would only be a waste of money better spent on iraq.

[Undertoad]

I watched that story and it was damning indeed. Putting a lawyer in charge of scientific decisions....

But I secretly enjoyed knowing the Cellar had determined the basic problem a year before 60 Minutes.

[wolf]

Where do you think they get their ideas?

[Happy Monkey]

If the facts weren't so biased against him, Bush wouldn't have to do this. Smegging facts.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

But I secretly enjoyed knowing the Cellar had determined the basic problem a year before 60 Minutes.

We offered many perspectives ... including one that is proving correct.

[tw]

Originally Posted by wolf

Where do you think they get their ideas?

It's called Project for a New American Century. It's called the bible. And it's called party loyalty - America be damned. The last sentence defined a term called "anti-American".

[Griff]

Dude, she means 60 minutes.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Shhhhh, he's on a role.

[tw]

From the NY Times of 26 Apr 2006:

NASA Chief Says Future Flights Will Force Cutbacks in Science
The ability to send humans into space after retiring the space shuttle is such a high priority for NASA that some space science must be sacrificed to help pay for it, the agency's administrator, Michael D. Griffin, said Tuesday.

The gap between retiring the shuttle in 2010 and flying a new manned vehicle by four years after that must be narrowed to prevent long-term damage to the space program and national security, Dr. Griffin said before the Senate Commerce Subcommittee on Science and Space.

Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, Republican of Texas and chairwoman of the subcommittee, and Senator Bill Nelson of Florida, the ranking Democrat, repeated their concerns that the United States could sacrifice its leadership in space if it were to lose its ability to transport humans while other nations continued to do so.

The United States had long since lost leadership in unmanned launching, in part, because politics rather than science created the Space Shuttle. Most all productive science is in unmanned space operations. World leader in launching is the French - Arlene series. Russians also provide in increasing share of reliable launching. The US has recovered some business with a Boeing launch system from a ship in the Pacific. But American space budget is politically driven by 'man in space' mostly for political pride rather than for science and the advancement of mankind.

As noted in other threads, ISS does no science. That $8billion project - that has now cost more than $80billion - does no science AND requires constant maintenance by humans using a fleet of manned transport systems.

NASA has a severe problem. No manned launch vehicles for four years to keep ISS in orbit. Again, Russia will provide the only reliable, necessary, and useful solution: Soyuz spacecraft. An Apollo like craft that does manned transport more reliably, at less cost, with many useful features the Space Shuttle cannot provide such as an emergency escape system for the ISS.

NASA budget is mostly spent on a manned space program that do near zero science. Virtually all science occurs in a minor part of NASA's budget - that now may be cut further for 'less productive, higher cost, and politically hyped' operations. These same operations somehow distorted into national security.

The Bush administration has requested $16.8 billion for NASA's 2007 budget, including $5.3 billion for space science. But the science budget would stay about even for the next four years, reducing financing for science by $3 billion so the money could go to human spaceflight.

Posted previously are numerous basic earth science research and weather forecasting programs that will be canceled:
Perverting science for politics

Is this because George Jr's administration fears realities of global warming? Or only because his legacy justifies a man on Mars? Either way, advancement of mankind is not his agenda. Even Mars Rovers had difficulty getting additional financing when the Rovers performed long beyond what was expected. Mars Rovers do science - without presidential glory. Man on Mars is for the greater glory of a president - who desperately craves a legacy like Kennedy. Does he fear we will instead remember that George Jr condemned Hubble Space Telescope - the most successful science project in NASA's history. We should.

[9th Engineer]

I wonder if modern governments are even capable of launching and sustaining a project like sending a man to Mars. Political climates change too quickly, and in the end no politician is going to choose scientific advancement over the future of his party.
Any thoughts as to whether we'll see the most significant progress made by global corporations?

[Ibby]

Someone needs to take the Warren Zevon off of Bush's playlist, it's giving him ideas...

Originally Posted by Warren Zevon

Lawyers, guns and money... will get me out of this.

Though, slightly off topic... Am I the only one who thinks tw spends all his free time on far-left news sites and websites trying to find more news to post here in the cellar to make fun of the mental midget george jr with?

[glatt]

Originally Posted by Ibram

Though, slightly off topic... Am I the only one who thinks tw spends all his free time on far-left news sites and websites trying to find more news to post here in the cellar to make fun of the mental midget george jr with?

I doubt it. The stuff he gathers comes from mainstream sources.