Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin - Page 4

**CingularDuality** · 02-08-2006, 01:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeler

Oh, that's rich!

That's the second major resume padding scandal that we've had in the past year. Are politicians lying more, or are investigative journalists getting better?

Steeler · 02-08-2006, 04:43 PM

One of the characteristics of the current party system is blanket rewards. Part of maintaining discipline within the party is the knowledge that you will be rewarded for your service, so at the end of a campaign you're left with literally thousands of mid-level staffers who need bureaucratic slots. The Democrats are guilty of this too, but I've never seen such a collection of poorly-qualified hangers on before.

Personally, I blame the College Republicans.

Boot · 02-08-2006, 05:10 PM

Kooks and hangers on infest every facet of society. You'll find them in roughly equal percentage in every area: democrat, republican, beurocrat (the fourth branch of government), and even in corporate America. In the end, this appears to be a good example of the mediocre versus the misinformed. It makes as much difference in the world as what I ate for dinner: it tasted good at the time, but it's pretty much crap by now anyway.

**GhostintheShell** · 02-08-2006, 06:12 PM

The quote I posted from Orwell wasn't meant to say whether one person or the other was honest, it was intended to provoke thought. Compare the passage from "1984" to the current situation, and you can't do much else but laugh at the futility of it all.

I don't think we know who's "honest" here. Global warming in general doesn't exist according to all the numeric data I've seen (and posted), but on the other hand the government is trying to stifle this scientist because they don't like the message he is trying to put out. What did he expect? NASA is a political machine.

Science and its research are incredibly corrupted by politics. Huge reforms are needed to the way government rewards funding to research projects. Funding only the projects that support your political platform doesn't cut it. You need to have independant teams of researchers, that are detached form their funding sources and arriving at similar conclusions on topics like global warming to even start to get anywhere in understanding the truth.

AMosely · 02-09-2006, 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

What did he expect? NASA is a political machine.

NASA's mission statement:
* To advance and communicate scientific knowledge and understanding of the earth, the solar system, and the universe.
* To advance human exploration, use, and develoment of space.
* To research, develop, verify, and transfer advanced aeronautics and space technologies.

Politics have absolutely nothing to do with this mission, nor should it. This was my main point in creating this thread, so thanks for picking up on it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Science and its research are incredibly corrupted by politics. Huge reforms are needed to the way government rewards funding to research projects. Funding only the projects that support your political platform doesn't cut it. You need to have independant teams of researchers, that are detached form their funding sources and arriving at similar conclusions on topics like global warming to even start to get anywhere in understanding the truth.

Totally in agreement with you here. I would argue that Bush's administration is making matters worse and not better by appointing politically minded, unqualified individuals like this Deutsch guy to control scientific agences that are designed to further human knowledge.

**GhostintheShell** · 02-10-2006, 05:42 PM

Politics shouldn't have anything to do with it, but unfortunately they play a huge role at NASA.

NASA lives and dies according to the current political climate.

**CingularDuality** · 02-11-2006, 02:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GhostintheShell

Politics shouldn't have anything to do with it, but unfortunately they play a huge role at NASA.

NASA lives and dies according to the current political climate.

As it is with EVERY federal organization...

Addict · 03-13-2006, 02:31 PM

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11745704/

Addressing the policy issue, despite feelings of impropriety, it seems to me that Jim Hansen's complaint was effective at loosening the political oversight of scientific releases.

Quote:

A change in policy appears to be occurring after NASA scientist Jim Hansen complained about being silenced because of the Bush administration’s opposition to mandatory curbs on greenhouse gases that many scientists tie to global warming.

“A few months ago this press release might have been seriously edited or not approved,” Zwally said.

Addressing the actual "warming" issue, this does not prove anything. It merely documents observations consistent with some models that predict the warming. But that is how theories come to be accepted, predict, test, modify.

Quote:

Based on satellite mapping of ice sheets and published in the Journal of Glaciology, the survey validated computer models projecting impacts on Earth from global warming.

Quote:

But Zwally noted that the predicted climate warming cited in the press release is caused by manmade emissions. A natural warming cycle is technically possible, he said, but not likely given how closely the warming and models track.

So the models that they are testing are the non-natural(human impact) climate change models. And they are being supported by experimental evidence.... Still, I would have liked, in addition to hearing how much the models that include humans match, heard that natural warming models did NOT track... but meh. It's more info.

AMosely · 03-13-2006, 03:59 PM

Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I think it covers very current and relevant issues concerning both global warming and the Bush administration's tendecies to "filter" scientific research.

Speaking to the Bush administration's habits towards scientific research, there is an excellent article in the New Yorker this week. The article is not available on-line yet, but a Q&A with the writer is available here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01

AMosely · 04-07-2006, 03:35 PM

This story continues... now NOAA scientists are speaking up. I understand the Bush administration's belief (based on increased funding and public statements) that more research is needed. I do not understand - and take great issue with - this policy of squelching and filtering ongoing research. That's not the way scientific debate and inquiry works. Scientific knowledge is built on experimentation, postulation and testing. To try and spin message of scientific research through monitoring, control and outright censorship is flat out wrong.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040502150.html

This combined with Libby's testimony this week in the CIA leak case - fingering Bush himself as the declassifier of information pertaining to the "aluminum uranium enrichment tubes" in Africa - further supports the notion that there appear to be no legal or ethical limits to how deceptive this administration can be when it comes to the use of sensitive and important information.

It's wrong to abuse power to further your own personal goals or beliefs. There is documented proof that this administration has done this in multiple areas - climate change and the lead-up to war in Iraq.

**leejo** · 04-07-2006, 04:52 PM

Ha!

The outrage shown at the non-leak of a non-secret non-agent combined with the solemn reverence afforded the "whistleblower" jackass who leaked an actual state secret, the ongoing NSA efforts to listen to Al Qaeda phone calls shows that there are no legal or ethical limits to the Bush haters' expedience.

Joe Wilson and wife are blowhards and documented liars. The 9/11 commission refuted his statements in their report. And now Scooter Libby, on trial for lying to a grand jury, is your source for this jawdropping revelation that the President may have declassified some content? You might either try to find some corroborating evidence or hold tight until the facts get sorted out. At least consider the calibre of person with whom you choose to ally yourself. Lots of people with truth-telling issues there.

Furthermore, this issue of the Bush administration's putting a sock in NOAA and Nasa scientists is rendered even more absurd. Read the article. These scientists have merely been brought into line with the same communication standards that justice and state have used for years. Perhaps someone has recognized that global warming, all these "objective" scientists' apolitical whining to the WaPo aside, is more a political issue than a scientific one?

**Apophis** · 04-07-2006, 05:03 PM

Just to add more fuel to the fire:

Quote:

Air trends 'amplifying' warming

Reduced air pollution and increased water evaporation appear to be adding to man-made global warming.

Research presented at a major European science meeting adds to other evidence that cleaner air is letting more solar energy through to the Earth's surface. Other studies show that increased water vapour in the atmosphere is reinforcing the impact of man-made greenhouse gas emissions. Scientists suggest both trends may push temperatures higher than believed.

Full Article

AMosely · 04-07-2006, 05:43 PM

I am content holding tight on the Libby/Plame case, it's the lesser of the two issues to me, personally. I care not for the specifics or personalities of the case - it's what I am reading between the lines concerning how exactly the Bush White House feeds stories to the press in order to shape public opinion. Again, nothing new on the surface - it's what is beneath the surface that is disturbing. Of course it is all up for interpretation.

With regard to the tight controls over climate change and global warming - this is a very different matter. I take serious issue with the thought that scientists working for the public good are being 'brought into line with the same communication standards that justice and state have used for years." Why can't any government employee, let alone a scientist, speak out in opposition to specific pieces of policy that he or she may disagree with? Is this speech only allowed by legislators? This is not a corporation where employees are required to tow the line. Government employees work for the people - not the President. With the exception of issues of classified information, is this not covered under free speech?

Regardless, the argument that these scientists are simply being held to existing "communication standards" is completely bogus in instances of unqualified Presidentially-appointed personnel (as in George Deutsch) manually omitting references to global warming and climate change in scientific publications with a broad magic marker. This simply is not the way that NASA and NOAA were designed to function, and if multiple scientists (not just James Hansen) are speaking out, I'm going to listen up. What Bush may not realize is that direct censorship often only increases attention and interest in the blocked information.

A democracy is based on free and open debate, not sterilized "communication standards" that allow a sitting President and his cabinet to decide what can and can't be said by its scientific advisors.

Diceman · 04-07-2006, 06:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Perhaps someone has recognized that global warming, all these "objective" scientists' apolitical whining to the WaPo aside, is more a political issue than a scientific one?

Ok, let's assume you're right. I have a couple of questions:

Was the concern regarding climate change originally based in science or in politics?
1. If it was originally based in science, why was it politicized?
2. If it was originally a political idea, what was the motivation?
Given that the idea is political, how has a broad global consensus come about? This isn't the first political question that has impacted the work of scientists.

Beatnik · 04-07-2006, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by leejo

Furthermore, this issue of the Bush administration's putting a sock in NOAA and Nasa scientists is rendered even more absurd. Read the article. These scientists have merely been brought into line with the same communication standards that justice and state have used for years. Perhaps someone has recognized that global warming, all these "objective" scientists' apolitical whining to the WaPo aside, is more a political issue than a scientific one?

Let's take a critical look at what the article states as fact, starting with the quote you referenced.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Washington Post Article

Administration officials said they are following long-standing policies that were not enforced in the past. Kent Laborde, a NOAA public affairs officer who flew to Boulder last month to monitor an interview Tans did with a film crew from the BBC, said he was helping facilitate meetings between scientists and journalists.

"We've always had the policy, it just hasn't been enforced," Laborde said. "It's important that the leadership knows something is coming out in the media, because it has a huge impact. The leadership needs to know the tenor or the tone of what we expect to be printed or broadcast."

First off, simply saying 'We have a policy' says nothing about the validity of screening scientific communications to the media. However, in the context of the article, it appears that Laborde is only referring to the practice of monitoring what communications are said; it does not appear to be speaking to giving politically appointed lawyers editorial control over scientific analysis.

I'm not sure what you mean by "Perhaps someone has recognized that global warming, all these "objective" scientists' apolitical whining to the WaPo aside, is more a political issue than a scientific one?" Surely "These 'objective' scientists..." can't really imply that you believe that the (by all consensus) world's foremost experts on environmental climatology have a political axe to grind with the administration, and are using their field of expertise (while jeapordizing their scientific status and careers) to push forth a political objective. Because that would be a daft, misinformed assertion indeed.

As far as "someone realizing that global warming is more a political issue than a scientific one", of course politically appointed top brass in the administration see it as a political issue. Unfortunately, scientific data bears no political affiliation. Neither does analysis, when done by scientists who submit their work through a process called 'peer-review', in which other scientists/experts critically examine the data, collection methodology, and analysis. Those political appointees editing climate reports (e.g "Our Changing Planet" as described a few weeks ago on 60 Minutes) are in no way experts, have no scientific training, and are in fact lawyers not scientists. Phil Cooney, a former lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute, current Chief of Staff for the Council on Environmental Quality, made the edits to that report, before it was published as legitimate scientific analysis to Congress. Talk about absurd.

60 Minutes has a clip showing examples of the edits made by Cooney to the report, and they deliberately skew the language to exaggerate uncertainties, remove references to human health, and delete data/analysis about climate change itself. The video can be found at cbs.com by searching for 60 Minutes and 'warming' (no hotlink is available).

Clearly whatever 'policy' existed regarding giving superiors the right to edit reports doesn't apply to scientific analysis. And given the fact that in addition to the edits being made to scientific language in these reports, the addition of bringing chaperones into the interview process, witholding of communications/press releases, 'pocket veto' denials of access to the media as described in the article all amounts to gross political censorship of scientists' analysis.

Now how exactly is that absurd?

02-08-2006, 04:43 PM	#47 (permalink)
Steeler Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Taxachusetts Age: 30 Posts: 2,952	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin One of the characteristics of the current party system is blanket rewards. Part of maintaining discipline within the party is the knowledge that you will be rewarded for your service, so at the end of a campaign you're left with literally thousands of mid-level staffers who need bureaucratic slots. The Democrats are guilty of this too, but I've never seen such a collection of poorly-qualified hangers on before. Personally, I blame the College Republicans. __________________

02-08-2006, 05:10 PM	#48 (permalink)
Boot Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Wisconsin, USA Age: 37 Posts: 1,414	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Kooks and hangers on infest every facet of society. You'll find them in roughly equal percentage in every area: democrat, republican, beurocrat (the fourth branch of government), and even in corporate America. In the end, this appears to be a good example of the mediocre versus the misinformed. It makes as much difference in the world as what I ate for dinner: it tasted good at the time, but it's pretty much crap by now anyway. __________________ Boot. In Soviet Russia, TV watches YOU.

02-08-2006, 06:12 PM	#49 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin The quote I posted from Orwell wasn't meant to say whether one person or the other was honest, it was intended to provoke thought. Compare the passage from "1984" to the current situation, and you can't do much else but laugh at the futility of it all. I don't think we know who's "honest" here. Global warming in general doesn't exist according to all the numeric data I've seen (and posted), but on the other hand the government is trying to stifle this scientist because they don't like the message he is trying to put out. What did he expect? NASA is a political machine. Science and its research are incredibly corrupted by politics. Huge reforms are needed to the way government rewards funding to research projects. Funding only the projects that support your political platform doesn't cut it. You need to have independant teams of researchers, that are detached form their funding sources and arriving at similar conclusions on topics like global warming to even start to get anywhere in understanding the truth. __________________ 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

02-10-2006, 05:42 PM	#51 (permalink)
GhostintheShell Join Date: May 2003 Location: Guelph, Ontario Age: 37 Posts: 963	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Politics shouldn't have anything to do with it, but unfortunately they play a huge role at NASA. NASA lives and dies according to the current political climate. __________________ 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

03-13-2006, 03:59 PM	#54 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Thanks for resurrecting this thread. I think it covers very current and relevant issues concerning both global warming and the Bush administration's tendecies to "filter" scientific research. Speaking to the Bush administration's habits towards scientific research, there is an excellent article in the New Yorker this week. The article is not available on-line yet, but a Q&A with the writer is available here: http://www.newyorker.com/online/cont...n_onlineonly01

04-07-2006, 03:35 PM	#55 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin This story continues... now NOAA scientists are speaking up. I understand the Bush administration's belief (based on increased funding and public statements) that more research is needed. I do not understand - and take great issue with - this policy of squelching and filtering ongoing research. That's not the way scientific debate and inquiry works. Scientific knowledge is built on experimentation, postulation and testing. To try and spin message of scientific research through monitoring, control and outright censorship is flat out wrong. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...040502150.html This combined with Libby's testimony this week in the CIA leak case - fingering Bush himself as the declassifier of information pertaining to the "aluminum uranium enrichment tubes" in Africa - further supports the notion that there appear to be no legal or ethical limits to how deceptive this administration can be when it comes to the use of sensitive and important information. It's wrong to abuse power to further your own personal goals or beliefs. There is documented proof that this administration has done this in multiple areas - climate change and the lead-up to war in Iraq.

04-07-2006, 04:52 PM	#56 (permalink)
leejo Join Date: Sep 2003 Age: 39 Posts: 7,839	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin Ha! The outrage shown at the non-leak of a non-secret non-agent combined with the solemn reverence afforded the "whistleblower" jackass who leaked an actual state secret, the ongoing NSA efforts to listen to Al Qaeda phone calls shows that there are no legal or ethical limits to the Bush haters' expedience. Joe Wilson and wife are blowhards and documented liars. The 9/11 commission refuted his statements in their report. And now Scooter Libby, on trial for lying to a grand jury, is your source for this jawdropping revelation that the President may have declassified some content? You might either try to find some corroborating evidence or hold tight until the facts get sorted out. At least consider the calibre of person with whom you choose to ally yourself. Lots of people with truth-telling issues there. Furthermore, this issue of the Bush administration's putting a sock in NOAA and Nasa scientists is rendered even more absurd. Read the article. These scientists have merely been brought into line with the same communication standards that justice and state have used for years. Perhaps someone has recognized that global warming, all these "objective" scientists' apolitical whining to the WaPo aside, is more a political issue than a scientific one?

04-07-2006, 05:43 PM	#58 (permalink)
AMosely Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Maine Age: 34 Posts: 2,793	Re: Climate Change, NASA, and the Bush Admin I am content holding tight on the Libby/Plame case, it's the lesser of the two issues to me, personally. I care not for the specifics or personalities of the case - it's what I am reading between the lines concerning how exactly the Bush White House feeds stories to the press in order to shape public opinion. Again, nothing new on the surface - it's what is beneath the surface that is disturbing. Of course it is all up for interpretation. With regard to the tight controls over climate change and global warming - this is a very different matter. I take serious issue with the thought that scientists working for the public good are being 'brought into line with the same communication standards that justice and state have used for years." Why can't any government employee, let alone a scientist, speak out in opposition to specific pieces of policy that he or she may disagree with? Is this speech only allowed by legislators? This is not a corporation where employees are required to tow the line. Government employees work for the people - not the President. With the exception of issues of classified information, is this not covered under free speech? Regardless, the argument that these scientists are simply being held to existing "communication standards" is completely bogus in instances of unqualified Presidentially-appointed personnel (as in George Deutsch) manually omitting references to global warming and climate change in scientific publications with a broad magic marker. This simply is not the way that NASA and NOAA were designed to function, and if multiple scientists (not just James Hansen) are speaking out, I'm going to listen up. What Bush may not realize is that direct censorship often only increases attention and interest in the blocked information. A democracy is based on free and open debate, not sterilized "communication standards" that allow a sitting President and his cabinet to decide what can and can't be said by its scientific advisors.

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

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links

Sponsored links