Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin - Page 3

**leejo** · 02-02-2006, 12:09 PM

Cheap ad hominem attack aside, here's the thing. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if Mr. Hansen appeared at conferences and stated NASA's position, then made his case for what he felt needed more attention. An effective leader would figure out a way to be respectful of his superiors and coworkers of different opinions and find a way to make his pitch for the changes he would like.

Mr. Hansen is insubordinate. He is actively undermining his department's policy. He is whining. Maybe if he nailed an intern in his office then it would be ok to contemplate removing him from his office? What does it take to get someone fired in your mind? One out of the above four is good enough for me.

AMosely · 02-02-2006, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Cheap ad hominem attack aside,

First of all, please don't take this personally, it's never my intention, and though I may disagree with you on many things I have nothing against you as an individual. That was meant as a compliment - do you not side with Bush and the republican party on most issues? I was only suggesting that you seem to think much the way they do.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

here's the thing. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if Mr. Hansen appeared at conferences and stated NASA's position, then made his case for what he felt needed more attention.

I completely agree. I never said that he was an angel, and I don't agree with him bringing his political views to the table. That should be irrelevant to someone in his position.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

An effective leader would figure out a way to be respectful of his superiors and coworkers of different opinions and find a way to make his pitch for the changes he would like.

I would add that an effective leader also tries to be respectful to his/her subordinates. I don't think Bush is an effective leader, and I think his advisors (namely Rove) are hostile, arrogant leaders.

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Mr. Hansen is insubordinate. He is actively undermining his department's policy. He is whining. Maybe if he nailed an intern in his office then it would be ok to contemplate removing him from his office? What does it take to get someone fired in your mind? One out of the above four is good enough for me.

I believe that insubordination to injustice is a good thing. I don't think that he was undermining his department's policy, he was undermining the White House's policy. In my mind, someone should only be fired when they commit a crime involving their employer, or otherwise break an established code of conduct. There are no rules stipulating that a President cannot have sex with an intern in the Oval office, and there no rules stipulating that a NASA scientist cannot publicly disagree with, or even denounce the White House.

My only point in this thread is that this story seemed to provide evidence for the thought that the Bush administration openly conceals and maniupulates information when it pertains to the subjects of global warming and environmental policy in general, which I believe to be bad policy. I expect my government to tell me the truth, or at least both sides of an issue, allowing publicly paid scientists to conduct free and open research - not maniupulate it to serve a single branch agenda.

**GhostintheShell** · 02-02-2006, 03:58 PM

The data in the spreadsheets I posted is the raw US DOE data.

**leejo** · 02-02-2006, 04:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

My only point in this thread is that this story seemed to provide evidence for the thought that the Bush administration openly conceals and maniupulates information when it pertains to the subjects of global warming and environmental policy in general, which I believe to be bad policy.

Of course that was your only point with this thread. You presented information with which you tend to agree: that the Bush administration lies to the public, actively works to conceal information that the earth is heating up because of human action, kills baby seals, is arrogant, and wont listen to reason. Then, when I challenge some of those assumptions, you call me a brainless party hack, at worst, or someone whose ideas you dismiss because you think you already know them, at best, then pretend like you meant it as a compliment. That's not arrogant in the slightest, is it?

If you think I'd be a perfect fit for an organization you believe "openly conceals and maniupulates (sic) infomation" then I don't take that as high praise. And I don't believe that you meant no offense.

Finally, I think you're dead wrong about how organizations work. Mr. Hansen and his ilk are poison.

AMosely · 02-02-2006, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

You presented information with which you tend to agree: that the Bush administration lies to the public, actively works to conceal information that the earth is heating up because of human action, kills baby seals, is arrogant, and wont listen to reason.

Where did I present information about the Bush administration lying to the public, killing baby seals, and not listening to reason?

I did present information on the Bush administration concealing information - something I do believe it does, and something I believe every Presidential administration does. I also posted comments indicating that I believe Bush, under Rove's advisement, does far too much of this concealing and manipulating.

I'm not dead wrong about how organizations work - many organizations support healthy means of civil discourse - look at Universities and Colleges, for example. Many organizations don't, and are run rather heavy-handedly by executive boards. I am certainly not arguing that our government is a model of any kind. I am arguing that I believe it should be, or at least strive to be.

Lastly, can we please drop the insults. I apologize if I took offense to your original post, which was born out of misunderstanding in the first place. Obviously we disagree on many things but there's no need to get into a battle of accusation. The whole point of a discussion board is civil discourse - if that's not the case here (as it seems to state in the forum rules), then I'll gladly bow out.

**Rincewind** · 02-06-2006, 08:55 AM

We'll probably be seeing more about this story in the coming weeks. There's this article in the NYT and Physicist Phil Plait gets a bit more in depth as to the problems behind the administrations practice of editing and conforming results and politicizing the science being carried out at the space agency.

To top it off, this gem from 24 year old George Deutsch, an Administration appointee to NASA:

"The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator." "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."

and his job description:

Quote:

NASA Internal Memo: Message From the Administrator - Scientific Openness

"Second, the job of the Office of Public Affairs, at every level in NASA, is to convey the work done at NASA to our stakeholders in an intelligible way. It is not the job of public affairs officers to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."

Three cheers for making sense.

RW

AMosely · 02-06-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Starting early in 2004, directives, almost always transmitted verbally through a chain of midlevel workers, went out from NASA headquarters to the agency's far-flung research centers and institutes saying that all news releases on earth science developments had to allude to goals set out in Mr. Bush's "vision statement" for the agency, according to interviews with public-affairs officials working in headquarters and at three research centers.

These stories are coming from too many sources to just be one or two 'insubordinate' NASA employees that are infusing politics with their research - and it would appear as though it was the Bush administration who first infused politics with science, not the other way around. The administration's statements concerning intelligent design and the big bang must be so incredibly insulting to NASA scientists. They are managing public agencies as though they were corporate entities.

Quote:

Mr. Wild declined to be interviewed; Mr. Deutsch did not respond to e-mail or phone messages. On Friday evening, repeated queries were made to the White House about how a young presidential appointee with no science background came to be supervising Web presentations on cosmology and interview requests to senior NASA scientists.

The only response came from Donald Tighe of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. "Science is respected and protected and highly valued by the administration," he said.

Boot · 02-07-2006, 12:08 PM

My ice age card trumps your global warming card.

The elements, they are a fightin.

AMosely · 02-07-2006, 03:13 PM

Please re-read my original post when opening this thread:

Quote:

Originally Posted by AMosely

I do believe that the Earth is undergoing climate change, and I do believe that humans have altered or enhanced this natural cycle through excessive use of fossil fuels, among other things. What I am unsure about is to what degree we have made an impact, and how much of a difference that impact makes on the otherwise natural global climate change. I would like to see our government do its best to investigate these questions.

Climate change is a natural process - this is scientific fact. We do not completely understand it, however - just certain aspects of it. As far as global warming as a function of human activity, we do not fully understand it.

But even that isn't the purpose of the thread. The real purpose was to point out how the current presidential administration appears to be clouding scientific research for political reasons.

**GhostintheShell** · 02-07-2006, 06:32 PM

That's partly what's so hillariously ironic.

I've sat and read 3 pages of people arguing about the government "stifling" this NASA guy. It reminds me of the "boot production" analogy from the book "1984".

"But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain." -George Orwell,"1984"

Diceman · 02-07-2006, 07:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

That's partly what's so hillariously ironic.

I've sat and read 3 pages of people arguing about the government "stifling" this NASA guy. It reminds me of the "boot production" analogy from the book "1984".

1984 passage
-George Orwell,"1984"

Ghost, I'm not clear on your meaning here: are you saying that the NASA scientist is purposefully trying to present distorted information to suit his own ends? Alternatively, are you suggesting that the scientist, while honest, doesn't have enough knowledge to infer results that are any more meaningful than what the Administration dictates, which may or may not be honest?

**CingularDuality** · 02-08-2006, 03:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diceman

Alternatively, are you suggesting that the scientist, while honest, doesn't have enough knowledge to infer results that are any more meaningful than what the Administration dictates, which may or may not be honest?

I believe this is true.

When so many scientists with the same available data are able to come to so many different conclusions, I think it's obvious that we don't have enough data to reach a valid conclusion. We're missing something in this equation, otherwise there would be no debate over it.

**Rincewind** · 02-08-2006, 08:16 AM

More news on NASA cleaning house.

Steeler · 02-08-2006, 11:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The NY Times

George C. Deutsch, the young presidential appointee at NASA who told public affairs workers to limit reporters' access to a top climate scientist and told a Web designer to add the word "theory" at every mention of the Big Bang, resigned yesterday, agency officials said.

Mr. Deutsch's resignation came on the same day that officials at Texas A&M University confirmed that he did not graduate from there, as his résumé on file at the agency asserted.

Oh, that's rich!

AMosely · 02-08-2006, 12:49 PM

This story is really unfolding now - and in a really sad and embarrasing way. I think Deutsch's resignation only goes to prove that he was put in that position for entirely political reasons - to keep a lid on NASA's publications if and when they did not support Bush's stated 'vision.'

I doubt Bush himself has much to do with this - I am thinking Rove, Rove, Rove. This has Rove political strategy written all over it. Again, I find myself fearful of the greater message here.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NYTimes

"He's only a bit player," Dr. Hansen said of Mr. Deutsch. " The problem is much broader and much deeper and it goes across agencies. That's what I'm really concerned about."

"On climate, the public has been misinformed and not informed," he said. "The foundation of a democracy is an informed public, which obviously means an honestly informed public. That's the big issue here."

As I said before, this is what concerns me the most - purposeful misinformation. Hansen and his agenda aside, I think the tactics being used by the White House and Karl Rove in particular are very damaging to an already troubled American political system.

02-02-2006, 12:09 PM	#31 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,687	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Cheap ad hominem attack aside, here's the thing. It would be perfectly acceptable to me if Mr. Hansen appeared at conferences and stated NASA's position, then made his case for what he felt needed more attention. An effective leader would figure out a way to be respectful of his superiors and coworkers of different opinions and find a way to make his pitch for the changes he would like. Mr. Hansen is insubordinate. He is actively undermining his department's policy. He is whining. Maybe if he nailed an intern in his office then it would be ok to contemplate removing him from his office? What does it take to get someone fired in your mind? One out of the above four is good enough for me.

02-02-2006, 03:58 PM	#33 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin The data in the spreadsheets I posted is the raw US DOE data. __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

02-07-2006, 12:08 PM	#38 (permalink)
Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wisconsin, USA Age: 37 Posts: 1,412	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin My ice age card trumps your global warming card. The elements, they are a fightin. __________________ Boot. In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU.

02-07-2006, 06:32 PM	#40 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin That's partly what's so hillariously ironic. I've sat and read 3 pages of people arguing about the government "stifling" this NASA guy. It reminds me of the "boot production" analogy from the book "1984". "But actually, he thought as he re-adjusted the Ministry of Plenty's figures, it was not even forgery. It was merely the substitution of one piece of nonsense for another. Most of the material that you were dealing with had no connexion with anything in the real world, not even the kind of connexion that is contained in a direct lie. Statistics were just as much a fantasy in their original version as in their rectified version. A great deal of the time you were expected to make them up out of your head. For example, the Ministry of Plenty's forecast had estimated the output of boots for the quarter at 145 million pairs. The actual output was given as sixty-two millions. Winston, however, in rewriting the forecast, marked the figure down to fifty-seven millions, so as to allow for the usual claim that the quota had been overfulfilled. In any case, sixty-two millions was no nearer the truth than fifty-seven millions, or than 145 millions. Very likely no boots had been produced at all. Likelier still, nobody knew how many had been produced, much less cared. All one knew was that every quarter astronomical numbers of boots were produced on paper, while perhaps half the population of Oceania went barefoot. And so it was with every class of recorded fact, great or small. Everything faded away into a shadow-world in which, finally, even the date of the year had become uncertain." -George Orwell,"1984" __________________ Certainly there is no hunting like the hunting of man and those who have hunted armed men long enough and liked it, never really care for anything else thereafter. Ernest Hemingway, "On the Blue Water," Esquire, April 1936

02-08-2006, 08:16 AM	#43 (permalink)
Rincewind Join Date: May 2005 Location: Casting useless spells in Oklahoma. Age: 27 Posts: 2,813	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin More news on NASA cleaning house. __________________ ~~ Veritas simplex oratio est ~~ No matter how far a wizard goes, he will always come back for his hat. --T. Pratchett <---- You know you're getting old when you rely on your forum meta-data to remind you how old you are. Required Reading for all TG sandboxers

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links