Perverting science for politics [Archive]

Beestie

03-03-2004, 11:41 AM

Everything is not what it would appear to be. A little digging reveals the original list of 17 people (a mix of scientists, medical experts, lawyers, journalists, etc.)

The original 17 (http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2002/01/20020116-9.html)

And here is the list as it stands today. (http://bioethics.gov/reports/stemcell/members.html)

A quick comparison of the lists reveals the following two people dropped off the list:

Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D and his bio: Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D. Richard & Phyllis Duesenberg Professor of Christian Ethics at Valparaiso University. Professor Meilaender is an editor for the Journal of Religious Ethics and the Religious Studies Review . He takes a special interest in bioethics and is a Fellow of the Hastings Center. His books include Body, Soul, and Bioethics (1995) and Bioethics: A Primer for Christians (1997).

and

Stephen Carter, J.D. William Nelson Cromwell Professor of Law, Yale Law School. Professor Carter teaches constitutional law and law and religion. His recent books include God's Name in Vain (2000), Civility (1998), and Integrity (1996).

A quick Google on each reveals the following:

Dr. Meilaender favors of stem cell research?? (http://www.dmdoptions.com/research_1245.html) This article clearly demonstrates that he does NOT support stem cell research and resents being characterized as unsympathetic to the suffering of those whose suffering, it is alleged, would be relieved by the fruits of such research.

As for Mr. Carter, well, I found this on Slate, (a propoganda arm of the right-wing media outlet MSNBC :-)
on June 20, Carter missed a particularly crucial meeting of the bioethics panel in order to plug his book on NBC's Today show. Here is the article (http://slate.msn.com/id/2068616/) in its entirety which while not shedding any light on Mr. Carter's position on stem cell research, does shed light on his absence from the panel.

Lastly, here is an article (http://www.aamc.org/newsroom/reporter/apr02/bioethicspanel.htm) that would seem to indicate that the panel wasn't exactly a partisan group interested in coronating a pre-ordained outcome.
Dr. Foster, reporting back from the first of the council's sessions, nevertheless was "impressed by the intellectual power of the members. I expected that from resumes and reputations, but when you saw it in action you couldn't help but say this is really a smart group of people."

The first two meetings, in January and February in Washington, "were extremely professional and utterly dignified," he reported. "Every position was thoroughly heard, and there was no posturing or grandstanding. It was impressively mature, and there was never an angry rebuttal or argument." He added that "The four scientists interacted well with the non-scientists and vice versa, and I think it fair to say we all learned from each other." Dr. Kass earned Dr. Foster's praise for his demonstrated evenhandedness: "He leaned over backwards to ensure that all members participated and that all sides were heard. I felt a sense of pride in the country that it could be represented in this fashion by such a diverse group."
Given all this, I am forced to call bullshit on the blog"truth." It appears that the absence of the two members from the current make up of the panel was not, in any way that I can verify, related to their positions on stem cell research.

Undertoad

03-03-2004, 11:44 AM

Jesus B, good digging.

Happy Monkey

03-03-2004, 12:08 PM

Originally posted by Beestie
A quick comparison of the lists reveals the following two people dropped off the list:

Gilbert Meilaender, Ph.D
Meilaender is on both lists. Why do you think he's been dropped?

Undertoad

03-03-2004, 12:11 PM

Kass denies it (WaPo, registration req'd):

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A24742-2004Mar2.html

Beestie

03-03-2004, 12:12 PM

I don't know why this is pissing me off as much as it is. I guess its the whole blog = truth thing that I've seen enough of. I mean, even without knowing any panelist's position on STR the blog truth still comes up empty.

Firstly, if the panelists were truly dismissed because of their position on stem cell research, then they wouldn't have been appointed in the first place.

Secondly, from the bios of the two missing people, it is clear that they are devout Christians who, as a rule, do not support stem cell research.

Thirdly, if they really are opposed to stem cell research and really were dismissed as a consequence of that, then that implies that the remaining 15 are opposed to it or else they, too, would have been dismissed. So from that one must further conclude that the panel was 15-2 opposed to STR before the two panelists were replaced and further conclude that 15-2 was not good enough so Bush cleaned house to get 17-0.

Sorry, not today.

[/soapbox]

Beestie

03-03-2004, 12:19 PM

Meilaender is on both lists. Why do you think he's been dropped? Cuz I'm blind as a bat. Good catch. I had both pages open and was doing a visual matchup to find the differences. I went back and checked again and you are right. I could only find that Carter was missing on the current list . Then I realized (thanks to you) that the original list has 18 names but the current list only has 17 (only Carter dropped).

So, I can't tell who else dropped. The 2nd list is dated Jan 2004 so I'll have to dig some more.

Thanks for catching the error.

wolf

03-03-2004, 08:24 PM

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Democrats pander to their bases as well, but they usually don't have to corrupt research studies to do so.

Sure they do.

Each side has their own "think tanks" and "interest groups" ... and picks and chooses how to present their research to make their points.

If you need an actual example check out the Violence Policy Center (http://www.vpc.org/).

Happy Monkey

03-03-2004, 09:46 PM

Originally posted by wolf

Sure they do.

Each side has their own "think tanks" and "interest groups" ... and picks and chooses how to present their research to make their points.You're right, of course. I should have said that they do it less frequently. And, in any case, Bush does it more than anyone in US history.

wolf

03-03-2004, 11:32 PM

No, you just don't notice it as much when the "data" is proving your own position on the issues.

Without doing an exhaustive meta-analysis I suspect that both sides are perverting science equally.

Except John Lott, of course.

Happy Monkey

03-04-2004, 07:38 AM

Bush is the first president to start censoring out the results as they come in from federal science institutions. Bush removed the page for any study that he disagreed with from US government websites. This is a whole diferent ballgame from taking the special-interest study results as they come in.

Beestie

03-04-2004, 07:57 AM

Bush removed the page for any study that he disagreed with from US government websites. I'm gonna need direct evidence of that (please, no blogs). Ideally, a link to both the the government website copy and the science website copy of whatever finding was altered. But an article in a respected media outlet would suffice (please no Ananova). I have heard this before and I would like some corroboration.

Troubleshooter

03-04-2004, 09:21 AM

This page has lots and lots of links on it. References galore.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Scientific groups angry at loss of Elizabeth Blackburn from group considering stem cells | By Maria Anderson

US President George W. Bush dismissed two members of his President's Council on Bioethics last Friday afternoon in a move that has been dubbed a “very ill-advised decision” by the American Society for Biochemistry and Molecular Biology (ASBMB) president Bettie Sue Masters.

http://www.biomedcentral.com/news/20040303/04

Edit: just added a few words

Beestie

03-04-2004, 09:52 AM

Thanks, TS, that is the link I was looking for yesterday but apparently wasn't Googlefied yet.

Looks like I focused on the wrong members of the council and it appears the original concern that the Council is stacked appears to be a valid one.

That is extremely disheartening.

Troubleshooter

03-04-2004, 10:08 AM

Originally posted by Beestie
Thanks, TS, that is the link I was looking for yesterday but apparently wasn't Googlefied yet.

Looks like I focused on the wrong members of the council and it appears the original concern that the Council is stacked appears to be a valid one.

That is extremely disheartening.

Thanks. I get so many, and such a varied list, of newsletters that it's only a matter of time before a topic gets picked up in one, or many, of them.

And I agree, disheartening, but not surprising.

I'm just sitting around waiting for the revolution at this point.

Happy Monkey

03-04-2004, 10:44 AM

Originally posted by Beestie
But an article in a respected media outlet would suffice (please no Ananova). I have heard this before and I would like some corroboration.

ANWR wildlife maps: LA Times Text (http://www.peer.org/anwr/latimes.html) LA Times link (pay for archive) (http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/latimes/69731998.html?did=69731998&FMT=ABS&FMTS=FT&date=Mar+15,+2001&desc=Federal+Worker+Is+Fired+in+Wildlife+Refuge+Map+Flap) Wired News (http://www.wired.com/news/politics/0,1283,42536,00.html)

Sex education: NYT Text (http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1227-05.htm) NYT link (pay for archive) (http://query.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=F30E15F83A580C748EDDAB0994DA404482)

And here is a collection (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/index.htm). This is not an unbiased source - Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) - but it is a good list for reasearch purposes.

SteveDallas

03-04-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Beestie
I'm gonna need direct evidence of that (please, no blogs). Ideally, a link to both the the government website copy and the science website copy of whatever finding was altered. But an article in a respected media outlet would suffice (please no Ananova). I have heard this before and I would like some corroboration.

Politics and Science in the Bush Adminsitration (http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/) is a good place to start. Since it's produced by Congressional Democrats, it's obviously not free from suspicion of bias. However, it is copiously footnoted and usually provides the "before" and "after" information when it discusses web site changes.

Beestie

03-04-2004, 11:40 AM

I actually went through and read quite a few of the linked articles (thanks) and, in particular, comments by former admin officials going all the way back to the Nixon administration including officials in the first Bush administration.

[head shaking]
What I didn't find was anyone outside of the White House who disputed the allegation. That's just flat out irresponsible.
[/head shaking]

Happy Monkey

03-04-2004, 12:14 PM

Like so many of Bush's failings, he doesn't dispute it. He considers it a strength. And who knows, politically he may be right. I hope not.

Happy Monkey

03-04-2004, 02:42 PM

And here's a big one (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3076626/). EPA air quality.

Happy Monkey

04-11-2004, 11:35 AM

Logging policy. (http://www.sacbee.com/state_wire/story/8838687p-9765397c.htm)

04-12-2004, 08:49 PM

Originally posted by Beestie
What I didn't find was anyone outside of the White House who disputed the allegation. More damning facts say same. 60 prominent scientists published an open letter on 18 February. Many had been involved in science policy for both Republican and Democratic administrations. The letter was blunt: when scientific knowledge has been found to be in conflict with its political goals, the administration has often manipulated the process through which science enters into its decisions. Then the Union of Concerned Scientists chimed in separately to provide many more damning examples of such manipulation from Stem Cell research to the nonsensical Anti-ballistic missile system. Even the nuclear bunker buster bomb.

William Howard was turned down as a member of the Army Science Board because he might have contributed to the presidential campaign of John McCain. Actually another William Howard made the contribution; the administration was confused but would quash science because someone might have contributed to a Republican who is "not on the team". More examples of clearly underqualfieid candidates only because of their political beliefs are listed.

Manipulation of science for political agenda is so widespread that one must even ask if Hubble is being sacrificed to promote a silly man to Mars mission. A queston asked only because so much science is being perverted by administration political agenda.

The State Department's Arms Control and Non-proliferation Advsory Group was disbanded because it represented a threat to the President's political agenda. Not true, says Dr Marburger (presidential science advisor who was dispatched to disagree with the UCS). Technically Dr Marburger is correct. Just that the administration has forgotten to fund the Advisory Group for 32 months. We are to believe this little oversight has been ongoing for more than a year? People should have no problem seeing an administration spin and coverup here as well.

From The Economist of 10 April 2004:
There is a wide-spread feeling among scientists that Mr Bush is ignoring scietific results and opinions he does not like in other areas, too. In August 2003, the House of Representative Committtee on Government Reform made claims similar to those of the UCS report. It does not stop there. Supporters of 'good' science are under attack by these right wing religious extremists. One is Arlene Specter, republican PA Senator who is challenged by a darling of the administration - Pat Toomey.

One reason suggested for less funding on quantum physics is that those scientific results are in direct contradiction to Genesis. How dare we challenge teachings of the Bible. Slowly, more advanced physic research is moving to Europe and Japan where funding request need not be written to avoid religious overtones. Can we point fingers at specific lawmakers? No. But many science projects based on concepts contrary to Genesis have suddenly lost funding only recently. One example cited here is the Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (AMS) which would have asked questions about the Big Bang - a concept that violates Genesis.

Money on quantum physics contrary to Genesis is said by some to be diminishing. By themselves, these claims would be nothing more than speculation. But these claims are consistent with what the UCS and those 60 prominent scientists have said.

The administraton does distort science to promote their religious beliefs and political agendas. But then this administration would even lie about an Iraq war, about funding for Medicaid perscription plan - even that they had no idea of an Al Qaeda attack involving hijacked planes and buildings.

Clearly this administration would subvert science for their own self serving ambitions as just too many publications and science organizations say - even a recent article by the Institute of Electrical and Electronic Engineers - IEEE.

cowhead

04-20-2004, 03:08 PM

I expect politicians to lie to us, that's what they do.. It's in the nature of the game, however this is just plain wrong. there was a post above asking for the information on the distortions that the current admin is doing, well.. here's a link to Henry Waxmans' report on what' what and suchlike (you'll need acrobat.. which somehow I am assuming that everyone on this board is comp-literate enough to own a copy of :)) )

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/report.htm

and here's a direct link to all glorious 32 pages of it

http://www.house.gov/reform/min/politicsandscience/pdfs/pdf_politics_and_science_rep.pdf

happy reading.. it made me really really angry when I read it

04-23-2004, 03:02 AM

from NY Times of 23 April 2004 Science Group Says U.S. Budget Plan Would Harm Research (http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/23/politics/23RESE.html)

The nation's largest general science group said Thursday that the Bush administration's proposed budget for the next five years could cut research financing at 21 of the 24 federal agencies that engage in it.
...
Mr. Koizumi said he projected that the lower spending would continue from 2005 to 2009 and "leave key programs with budgets well below recent historical levels."
...
For instance, he said, federal budgets would decline 15.9 percent for earth science over the next five years, 16.2 percent for aeronautics, 11.8 percent for biological and physics research, 21 percent for energy-supply research, and 11.3 percent for agriculture research. Research budgets would drop 15 percent at the Environmental Projection Agency, 10.5 percent at the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and 4.7 percent at the National Science Foundation, a federal agency that supports a diversity of fundamental investigations.Nothing new or unexpected here. George Jr knows we are wasting time with silly science when we should be sending men to Mars. After all he knows. He has an MBA degree.

xoxoxoBruce

04-23-2004, 07:27 PM

You'll probably say it isn't possible, but could it be that the bugets were bloated to begin with. A ten year old can whine that Dad cut his allowance 25%, when in fact it was cut from $1,000 to $750 per week. When they talk of % funding cuts it leaves us without enough information.:confused:

richlevy

04-23-2004, 08:45 PM

Originally posted by tw
Nothing new or unexpected here. George Jr knows we are wasting time with silly science when we should be sending men to Mars. After all he knows. He has an MBA degree.

You know, I'm really beginning to think we should have some continuing education or retesting requirement on those things. If 80-year-old drivers in Florida can be retested to see if they still can drive, can't we find some way to retest GWB to find out if he remembered anything from Economics 101.

Happy Monkey

04-28-2004, 06:30 PM

Women's issues. (http://www.ncrw.org/misinfo/index.htm)

DanaC

04-28-2004, 07:33 PM

Nice one Happy Monkey. Thats a fascinating read.

Happy Monkey

05-03-2004, 11:03 AM

Salmon population counting. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51480-2004Apr28.html)

05-04-2004, 08:18 PM

Securing Our Nation's Energy Future (http://www.whitehouse.gov/infocus/energy/)
Increase Domestic Energy Supplies through Advanced Alternative Technologies

Authorize the President’s Hydrogen Fuel initiative to help reduce our dependence on foreign sources of oil by creating a new generation of hydrogen-powered vehicles
Clearly the president has knowledge beyond that found in science. Where is all this hydrogen to come from? Will we just drill into the earth for it? IOW this president thinks you a fool. All he need do is put up some neat sound bytes and we will believe him?

In the meantime, enemies of god's choosen - Scientific American and Industrial Physicist -explain many problems with hydrogen fuels. God's laws exist such as Laws of Energy Conservation, and Thermodynamics. For example 4 cycle automobile automobile engines will never use more than 40% of the energy consumed in doing productive work. Basic thermodynamics principles cannot be violated no matter how George Jr interpretes the bible.

Manufacturing and distributing hydrogen to cars as fuel will mean somewhere between 78% and 92% of the energy will be lost - does no productive work. Inefficiencies because of so many energy conversions, gas compression, massive structures to contain hydrogen at those exteme pressures, leakage, etc. That is the problem with science. God does not decree a solution. Hydrogen is promoted by George Jr as a fuel just as he sees a 'man to Mars' as advanced science.

Bottom line - Hydrogen is not an acceptable fuel. It will never create energy independence. The solution to energy problems is conservation and efficiency. 30 years after they developed the technology, GM still did not use 70 Horsepower per liter engines in all vehicle (even though Honda and Toyota do). Why does George Jr not address that problem? Therein lies a major problem making the US energy dependent.

George Jr instead gives GM $millions - a gift - no strings attached - just to do the hybrid research that Honda and Toyota had been doing for years. Where does that solve the problem? (It means more legalized bribed from GM will appear in George Jr's campaign chest).

We have a problem. We need people educated in reality to make decisions and empower innovators. George Jr lies. He says Hydrogen fueled vehicles will be a solution. How curious. Anyone with real world knowledge is not saying that. Why does George Jr know better? Maybe god told him? Openly questioning either the intelligence or honesty of this president - because first I examine the facts rather than wait for god to tell me.

05-07-2004, 11:46 AM

Clearly the administration knows better than scientists. Review the votes by scientists. But the president was, after all, choosen by god:
from the Washington Post of 7 May 2004 Plan B Won't Be Sold Over Counter
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6766-2004May6.html)
The Food and Drug Administration yesterday rejected over-the-counter sales of the emergency contraceptive Plan B, saying the distributor had not proved that young teenagers can take the drug safely without a doctor's guidance.

The decision was an unusual repudiation of the lopsided recommendation of the agency's own expert advisory panel, which voted 23 to 4 late last year that the drug should be sold over the counter and then, that same day, 27 to 0 that the drug could be safely sold as an over-the-counter medication.

The denial was a major goal of social conservatives, including members of Congress who lobbied President Bush on the issue. Reproductive-rights advocates lobbied equally hard for its approval, and yesterday they criticized the decision as misguided and a historic blot on the reputation of the FDA as a science-based agency.
...

The "not approvable" letter was signed by acting director of the FDA's Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Steven K. Galson, not by members of the FDA review team, as is usual. Former officials of the FDA said that generally means that the review team had made a different recommendation. The religious concept is that a 'morning after' pill causes an abortion. It is a fetus the millisecond a male ejaculates. After all, only god has the right to determine whether a baby is created. Therefore 27 unanimous scientists must be wrong. Screw the civil rights of women. God's choosen administration knows which religious beliefs must be imposed upon the people.

xoxoxoBruce

05-08-2004, 02:56 PM

Originally posted by Happy Monkey
Salmon population counting. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51480-2004Apr28.html) I don't see a problem here, Monkey. If we had a bunch of zoos cranking out thousands of tigers per year, then tigers shouldn't be on the endangered list.
But the Greenies say it's not about fish, it's about logging and development. It's really about habitat. Well then say so, god damn it. I'm just as tired of the greenies, as I am of the gumint, being deceptive about the real goals. If you want my support, talk straight.:mad:

Happy Monkey

05-08-2004, 05:50 PM

It's like saying wolves couldn't be endangered as long as there are dogs.

wolf

05-08-2004, 05:53 PM

No, dogs, while genetically similar are not wolves.

If would be the same if the wolf refuges were involved in breeding programs and releasing wolves to the wild. Oh, wait, they are. That's why there are wolves in Yellowstone again.

The salmon are still salmon.

xoxoxoBruce

05-09-2004, 12:10 AM

From the link
"Rather than address the problems of habitat degraded by logging, dams and urban sprawl, this policy will purposefully mask the precarious condition of wild salmon behind fish raised by humans in concrete pools," said Jan Hasselman, counsel for the National Wildlife Federation. I have a problem with this person putting fish up as the problem when they really have a problem with logging, dams and sprawl. Maybe we should just evacuate the upper half of the west coast so the fish are not disturbed. Granted fish are a tougher sell than cute mammals but lets keep it real. If the problem is running out of salmon, the problem is solved. If the issue is something else, say so.;)

richlevy

05-09-2004, 01:39 PM

Nancy Reagan Calls for Stem Cell Research (http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=570&ncid=753&e=1&u=/nm/20040509/sc_nm/people_reagan_dc)

Well, when the first lady of one of the most beloved (by his own party) presidents of the United States challenges the Bush Adminstration, who will win.

Happy Monkey

06-15-2004, 02:03 PM

Nutrition. (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-afries15jun15,0,202707.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)

06-15-2004, 02:45 PM

cited by Happy Monkey Federal government classifies french fries as fresh veggies (http://www.sun-sentinel.com/news/local/southflorida/sfl-afries15jun15,0,202707.story?coll=sfla-home-headlines)
The USDA quietly changed the regulations last year at the behest of the french fry industry, which has spent the past five decades pushing for a revision to the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA).After five decades, they finally got a president that could be bought. Any of you George Jr lovers want to defend the mental midget president on this one? How does Rush Limbaugh deal with this? Or does he simply do what George Jr also does best - ignore facts he does not like.

richlevy

06-15-2004, 07:10 PM

Originally posted by tw
After five decades, they finally got a president that could be bought. Any of you George Jr lovers want to defend the mental midget president on this one? How does Rush Limbaugh deal with this? Or does he simply do what George Jr also does best - ignore facts he does not like.

I got the impression that it wasn't a health endorsement but one for legal and contractual purposes. Since french fries need to be frozen, they are asserting that the freezing does not mean they are not fresh. This is the same as how a 'fresh' turkey can be rock hard, just not frozen to a certain point.

xoxoxoBruce

06-15-2004, 07:20 PM

Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA). The law was passed by Congress in 1930 to protect fruit and vegetable farmers in the event that their customers went out of business without paying for their produce. I suppose "We The People" pay if they do, and the frozen food people want a piece of the action.:(

Happy Monkey

06-15-2004, 10:15 PM

Originally posted by richlevy
Since french fries need to be frozen, they are asserting that the freezing does not mean they are not fresh.French fries do not need to be frozen. Things only need to be frozen if you are not going to use them fresh (ice cream notwithstanding).

Here's their argument:
The Frozen Potato Products Institute appealed to the USDA in 2000 to change its definition of fresh produce under PACA to include batter-coated, frozen french fries, arguing that rolling potato slices in a starch coating, frying them and freezing them is the equivalent of waxing a cucumber or sweetening a strawberry.

bluesdave

06-16-2004, 12:42 AM

As an outsider (Aussie), I am confused as to how and why John Kerry seems to be so ineffective against Bush. Many of you have cited cases of the Bush administration corrupting information, and looking after corporate interests rather than the nation's, and if one believes even just some of the arguments against Bush, it seems difficult to imagine that Kerry would not win in a landslide in November.

Kerry's argument in favour of stem cell research http://www.johnkerry.com/pressroom/releases/pr_2004_0612a.html seems very wishy-washy to me. Surely he could be making a stronger point. From what I have heard in the media, Kerry has not been hurting Bush's credibility at all.

I have been getting the impression that Bush is likely to hold on in November because many potential anti Bush voters won't bother to vote, and that he has strong support in the mid-west. Is this true?

jaguar

06-16-2004, 02:40 AM

bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.

bluesdave

06-16-2004, 03:10 AM

Originally posted by jaguar
bluesdave, I'm an aussie expat, just wondering, do you think Latham is going to win? I haven't had time to check the news for a fair while now.
The word is that he doesn't have a chance (much like John Kerry over there). While most people now believe that Iraq was a mistake, and believe that John Howard lied to us, they still see Howard as a strong leader, and while the Aussie economy continues to hum along, it will be nearly impossible to dislodge him.

The only hope that Mark Latham has is if there is some sort of huge controversy that entangles Howard. The die hard Labor supporters all believe that Latham can win, but I can't see it happening without some external influence assisting him. Latham has also made a few faux pas over recent months which haven't helped his image.

jaguar

06-16-2004, 03:48 AM

=(

I liked latham, any politician that feels it's ok to call the prime minister an arse licker is worth his weight in gold in my book. I don't think I have to but I'll post in my vote, it'll make me feel better.

Happy Monkey

06-29-2004, 11:03 AM

Howard Dean on the subject (http://www.sitnews.us/HowardDean/062904_dean.html).

OnyxCougar

06-29-2004, 11:10 AM

LOL this cracks me up....

When a right-wing theory is contradicted by an inconvenient scientific fact, the science is not refuted; it is simply discarded or ignored.

Will it be long before a prominent panel of fundamentalist theologians, conservative columnists, and a few token scientists take up the question of whether the theory of evolution should be banned from the nation's classrooms? Stay tuned. In George Bush's America, ignorance is strength.

Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...

...and all these evidences are ignored, including by Mr. Dean.

oh, the irony....

Open minded people go to....

http://www.answersingenesis.org

Happy Monkey

06-29-2004, 01:18 PM

And yet, the age of the earth doesn't change a bit for the creationists, no matter what scientific evidence is available.

Are you seriously trying to say that the fact that science recognizes and corrects its errors is a weakness?

Beestie

06-29-2004, 01:48 PM

Originally posted by OnyxCougar Ya'll know my stance on evolution, and that most of the "proofs" provided in science textbooks have been disproven scientifically, and that the age of the earth gets older my millions of years at a rate of 2.1 million years a year...
Hmmm.

If science itself is flawed then science can't be used to disprove it, no? That's having it both ways.

Sometimes I consider the irony of Bush's efforts to smash theocracies abroad while seemingly trying to build one at home. The big problem with the White House implementing Christian doctrine is that they have police power to back it up. Isn't that contrary to the notion of religious freedom? What if Bush were a Muslim? A Jew? A Scientologist? A zealous athiest? Nothing against any of those religions/belief systems but I don't want their rituals imposed upon me. When is it ok versus not ok? The founding fathers already put that question to bed.

I have two small children. I tell them that God created the world, them and Mommy and Daddy. When they get older, I will attempt to explain the method God employed to do so. I find no inconsistency between faith and science and struggle with the assertion that there is one. Science does not venture into the realm of faith. If faith had the discipline to do likewise (e.g., know its boundaries) , we'd all be a lot better off.

Troubleshooter

06-29-2004, 01:56 PM

"The Bible—the ‘history book of the universe’—provides a reliable, eye-witness account of the beginning of all things, and can be trusted to tell the truth in all areas it touches on. Therefore, we are able to use it to help us make sense of this present world. When properly understood, the ‘evidence’ confirms the biblical account."

They can't be serious...

xoxoxoBruce

06-29-2004, 06:43 PM

They can't be serious... That my friend, is wishful thinking.:(

Troubleshooter

06-29-2004, 06:53 PM

Originally posted by xoxoxoBruce
That my friend, is wishful thinking.:(

It's not surprising as much as disapointing.

wolf

06-29-2004, 10:21 PM

Their point, I believe, is that they take themselves seriously.

Probably all too seriously.

Troubleshooter

06-30-2004, 09:24 AM

A friend and I started a little discussion about that site and one of the points that came out was what about the parts that were lifted from other religions? Doesn't that make them just as valid, and true, as christianity?

Happy Monkey

04-26-2005, 02:27 PM

One major problem with the Bush administration is their habit of appointing lobbyists to positions of authority. That's bad enough, but the lobbyists they appoint are the lobbyists for the industry/group that the position is supposed to regulate. Here's the latest example (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/04/15/Opinion/A_bad_choice_for_FWS_.shtml).

A lobbyist for "Safari Club International" in charge of the Fish and Wildlife Service.
Hogan's job before coming to work at FWS was as chief lobbyist for Safari Club International. The club has set hunting awards for its members like the Africa Big Five, in which a member shoots a leopard, elephant, lion, rhino and buffalo. Then there's the American Twenty Nine or Big Cats of the World.
For a member to get all 29 awards, he would have to kill at least 322 different animals.

mrnoodle

04-26-2005, 03:05 PM

You're right. Don't appoint someone who has a background in wildlife management, particularly hunting (the primary wildlife management tool nationwide). He wouldn't know nearly as much about the topic as, say, someone with a background in English Lit.

Or is it the fact that he kills animals? In that case, a PETA member would be appropriate. Their leader is on record as saying that in a perfect world, they would be able to breed out the carnivorous tendencies of animals such as wolves and mountain lions so that all creatures could live in harmony.

Maybe it should be someone with no opinion whatsoever in regard to hunting. They could approach wildlife management with a fresh eye. ("What's that, some kind of cow?" "No, sir, that's a pronghorn" "Do they bite?" "Not usually, sir.")

I need to go eat some meat. bbl.

lookout123

04-26-2005, 03:06 PM

mrnoodle. you actually made me chuckle with that one.

Happy Monkey

06-09-2005, 06:52 AM

"We don't put Phil Cooney on the record," Ms. St. Martin said. "He's not a cleared spokesman." (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/08/politics/08climate.html?ex=1275883200&en=22149dd70c073fd8&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss)

glatt

06-09-2005, 09:02 AM

That's a good article. Thanks for the link.

BigV

06-09-2005, 10:04 AM

Pure FUD. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.

warch

06-09-2005, 06:17 PM

Glad you refreshed this sad but true thread. How much longer is this fucking administration?

Elspode

06-09-2005, 06:20 PM

If ever you had a single doubt about what this administrations sole purpose for existence was, this should clear it up.

$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$

Happy Monkey

06-09-2005, 06:30 PM

Pure FUD. Thanks for bringing it to my attention.The guy was giving the F to government scientists, and creating UD for the administration to use.

06-10-2005, 01:31 AM

Appreciate who Philip A. Cooney is. He is a lawyer. He has no science education. His degree is in economics. He is therefore qualified to rewrite science papers for the George Jr administration. No wonder First Energy (that is also run by a lawyer and created the East Coast blackout) could have a Three Mile Island problem in Davis Bessie, arrange a $450,000 fund raiser for Bush Cheney, and not shutdown as two nuclear reactors were force to (for human safety reasons). Oh. And when they finally did shutdown for refueling, there was this hole through 6 inches of carbon steel. Had the Three Mile Island problem occurred, there was no containment vessel to prevent 60 pounds per square inch of exploding radioactive gas from visiting Toledo.

Ahh but these are numbers and science. The George Jr administration knows better. They have a lawyer. Money would have fixed Toledo. With God and lawyers, clearly the administration cannot be wrong. No wonder George Jr need not even read his PDBs.

So which science will be canceled this month so that a man can scratch the moon looking for water? Clearly global warming cannot be averted. (It says so in the bible?) This from the same man who repeatedly drilled for oil and never found any - but got rich anyway. Where is the morality in the new science - and intelligent design?

BigV

06-11-2005, 04:53 PM

Well, I can't find a cite online for this story, but going from my memory of a radio story I heard a little while ago, Philip A. Cooney has "resigned". The stated reason is that he had been wanting to spend the summer with his family. The administration denies that the resignation has anything to do with this week's story that we've been discussing.

I find this sequence of events too neat and tidy to believe. It seems that the revelation of his actions, editing scientific documents, without the training to produce the report, but "producing" the conclusions, the public face, was embarassing to the administration. See you later, buddy.

richlevy

06-11-2005, 05:43 PM

Well, I can't find a cite online for this story, but going from memory of a radio story a little while, Philip A. Cooney has "resigned". The stated reason is that he had been wanting to spend the summer with his family. The administration denies that the resignation has anything to do with this week's story that we've been discussing.

I find this sequence of events too neat and tidy to believe. It seems that the revelation of his actions, editing scientific documents, without the training to produce the report, but "producing" the conclusions, the public face, was embarassing to the administration. See you later, buddy.
For some reason this guy reminds me of Mitch Glazer (http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/dispatch/2000-08-25/music_feature.html) , the midnight bill raider who went to work for the RIAA after rigging some legislation.

It will be interesting to see who Mr. Cooney is hired by after his summer vacation.

Carbonated_Brains

06-11-2005, 05:49 PM

Sucks when the richest research community on Earth has its credibility tainted by a monkey in office and a bunch of religious wingnuts getting all uppity.

The only possible limits to research should be nondenominational ethical concerns.

And you creationists...I'm sorry, I'm a tolerant guy, but I giggle when you post ;-)

BigV

06-11-2005, 06:26 PM

--snip--It will be interesting to see who Mr. Cooney is hired by after his summer vacation.It seems clear to me that he never stopped working for The American Petroleum Institute. Not a joke.

BigV

06-15-2005, 10:31 AM

--snip--It will be interesting to see who Mr. Cooney is hired by after his summer vacation.And the answer is...:drumroll:ExxonMobil. (http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-briefs15.1jun15,1,6621672.story?coll=la-headlines-nation) It is worthy to note that he's been hired after a very short summer vacation with his family. All the same denials about his departure from the administration being unconnected to his tampering with scientific reports were repeated, but, quiet like. And then I also heard in the same story that the administration said that his edits didn't change anything. :smack:

This feels less like a hiring than it does a reassignment of duty station.

warch

06-16-2005, 08:06 PM

http://salon.com/news/feature/2005/06/16/thimerosal/index.html
Great article from Salon about mercury in childhood vaccines that has been clearly, statistically linked to autism. Government officials seem more interested in protecting pharaceutical companies than kids. culture of life and all.

The drug companies are also getting help from powerful lawmakers in Washington. Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, who has received $873,000 in contributions from the pharmaceutical industry, has been working to immunize vaccine makers from liability in 4,200 lawsuits that have been filed by the parents of injured children. On five separate occasions, Frist has tried to seal all of the government's vaccine-related documents -- including the Simpsonwood transcripts -- and shield Eli Lilly, the developer of thimerosal, from subpoenas. In 2002, the day after Frist quietly slipped a rider known as the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" into a homeland security bill, the company contributed $10,000 to his campaign and bought 5,000 copies of his book on bioterrorism. Congress repealed the measure in 2003 -- but earlier this year, Frist slipped another provision into an anti-terrorism bill that would deny compensation to children suffering from vaccine-related brain disorders. "The lawsuits are of such magnitude that they could put vaccine producers out of business and limit our capacity to deal with a biological attack by terrorists," says Andy Olsen, a legislative assistant to Frist.

Oh, and importing drugs from Canada is a risk...
At least take the shit off the market. Geeze. parents beware.
So far, 4 states have banned thimerosal. Lots of other states with legislation pending.

BigV

06-16-2005, 09:30 PM

More appropriately posted here. (http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=168816&postcount=21)

warch

06-17-2005, 02:43 PM

He's a piece of work.

russotto

06-17-2005, 03:37 PM

There have been other thimerosal-related studies which haven't shown a link, so this one isn't cut and dried. Personally, I think the link is there. I agree with the shield for the vaccine producers, though; if anyone should be on the hook here, it's the governments which require the vaccines.

Happy Monkey

06-17-2005, 03:51 PM

The link between thimerosal and vaccines may not be 100% (Nothing in science is), but the link between Frist and the coverup and the "Eli Lilly Protection Act" certainly is. A proper political response to a risk like this is to remove the product from market pending further testing, not to hide the damning studies and ensure nobody is held responsible.

warch

06-17-2005, 03:54 PM

From Kennedy's article:

What is most striking is the lengths to which many of the leading detectives have gone to ignore -- and cover up -- the evidence against thimerosal. From the very beginning, the scientific case against the mercury additive has been overwhelming. The preservative, which is used to stem fungi and bacterial growth in vaccines, contains ethylmercury, a potent neurotoxin. Truckloads of studies have shown that mercury tends to accumulate in the brains of primates and other animals after they are injected with vaccines -- and that the developing brains of infants are particularly susceptible. In 1977, a Russian study found that adults exposed to much lower concentrations of ethylmercury than those given to American children still suffered brain damage years later. Russia banned thimerosal from children's vaccines 20 years ago, and Denmark, Austria, Japan, Great Britain and all the Scandinavian countries have since followed suit.

"You couldn't even construct a study that shows thimerosal is safe," says Haley, who heads the chemistry department at the University of Kentucky. "It's just too darn toxic. If you inject thimerosal into an animal, its brain will sicken. If you apply it to living tissue, the cells die. If you put it in a petri dish, the culture dies. Knowing these things, it would be shocking if one could inject it into an infant without causing damage."

and this is disturbing, too.

The CDC paid the Institute of Medicine to conduct a new study to whitewash the risks of thimerosal, ordering researchers to "rule out" the chemical's link to autism. It withheld Verstraeten's findings, even though they had been slated for immediate publication, and told other scientists that his original data had been "lost" and could not be replicated. And to thwart the Freedom of Information Act, it handed its giant database of vaccine records over to a private company, declaring it off-limits to researchers. By the time Verstraeten finally published his study in 2003, he had gone to work for GlaxoSmithKline and reworked his data to bury the link between thimerosal and autism.

Vaccine manufacturers had already begun to phase thimerosal out of injections given to American infants -- but they continued to sell off their mercury-based supplies of vaccines until last year. The CDC and FDA gave them a hand, buying up the tainted vaccines for export to developing countries and allowing drug companies to continue using the preservative in some American vaccines -- including several pediatric flu shots as well as tetanus boosters routinely given to 11-year-olds.

Griff

06-18-2005, 09:32 AM

If you don't see it close up you have no idea how disruptive having a child with autism can be. I could tell some scarey tales but we are very careful not to ever give out any personal information about our kids. One of my colleagues wrote a paper on the connection or lack of one last semester. She couldn't find a link but then again the CDC doesn't let researchers use their data. :mad: An interesting side note Don Imus has been on a bit of an autism rant for a while now. It seems the Wall Street Journal had an oddly timed and lie filled hit piece on his ranch which he attributes to giving air time to folks who are trying to prove the link. Also Kennedy was supposed to do the talk show circuit yesterday for this article which will also be in Rolling Stone. He was cancelled from the Today Show and some other booking...

It'll be interesting to see what Santorum does on this. He has been very supportive of autism research but he also knows how conservative nutball$ get elected in this country.

edit: oh yah, I've long wondered if the Chicoms would ever use their access to Americas kids(toys crayons cookware) to poison their future. It turns out thats may have been the unintended (I pray) result of the USAs third world vaccination program. How long have they known and how do CDC folks go from protecting to poisoning?

Brett's Honey

06-19-2005, 08:21 AM

If you don't see it close up you have no idea how disruptive having a child with autism can be.
From 2000 to 2004, I worked at a sheltered workshop for adults with developmental disabilities. I have tremendous respect for these parents. I cannot imagine being in their shoes. I couldn't even imagine working with them eight hours a day! (I worked in administration). You see people organizing help and gathering support for parents of quintuplets, sextuplets, etc. That's wonderful and also needed, but parents of children with disabilities could always use some help, I'm sure. It's impossible for them to just be able to go out for dinner, or a movie or just to visit friends at times. And the parents of multiple birth babies eventually don't need any help. These parents can use a helping hand forever!
(And I always think...parents of multiple birth babies chose to do this! What if the help didn't come!?)

Griff

06-19-2005, 06:07 PM

You are so right BH. Get to know these kids and help their parents out, the rewards can't be described.They really are a wonder. If you guys ever get the chance spend some time with them. I was warned about getting caught up in the autism world by a professor once. Being with these kids is really habit forming. My guys are so loving and bright at one moment and frustrating and violent the next that I really can't let go. I need to understand what's happening in their minds.

Happy Monkey

06-20-2005, 05:15 PM

Here's a collection (http://thinkprogress.org/index.php?p=1127) of fodder for this thread.

03-06-2006, 02:23 AM

Global warming does not exist. Therefore the mental midget's administration is quietly killing off science projects that would discover what is happening on earth. Meanwhile we continue to fund what George Jr wants such as building an ISS that does no science, funding 'man to Mar' and 'man scratching for water on the moon' programs, liberating a nation that did not want to be liberated, and building military bases to liberate the next nation. Among science being terminated according to ABC News of 6 Mar 2006: NASA's Earth Observing System was conceived in the 1980s as a 15-year program that would collect comprehensive data about the planet's oceans, atmosphere and land surface. ...
Landsat, a series of satellites that have provided detailed images of the ground surface for more than 30 years, is in danger of experiencing a gap in service. ...
... a satellite designed to measure rainfall over the entire Earth, the Global Precipitation Measurement mission, has been pushed back to 2012. But the satellite it is designed to replace, the Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission, can't possibly last that long. That means there will be a period of several years when scientists have no access to the accurate global precipitation measurements that help them improve hurricane forecasts and predict the severity of droughts and flooding. [how politically convenient]
... scientists working on the Hydros mission received a letter canceling their program. They were developing a satellite that would measure soil moisture and differentiate between frozen and unfrozen ground, an increasingly important distinction since melting of the Arctic permafrost has accelerated over the past several decades. The satellite also would have improved drought and flood forecasting.
... Deep Space Climate Observatory, a project he has led for more than seven years, would be canceled. ... The observatory would have provided valuable information about how clouds, snow cover, airborne dust and other phenomena affect the balance between the amount of sunlight Earth absorbs and the amount of heat energy it emits. And because it would have hovered between Earth and the sun at a distance of roughly a million miles, it would have been able to observe the entire sunlit surface of the planet constantly. Such observations could greatly enhance scientists' understanding how much the planet has warmed in recent years and help them predict how much warmer it will get in
the future.
A new generation of weather satellites being developed jointly by NASA, the Department of Defense and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration has gone so far over budget that federal law requires a review of whether it is worth continuing. [A current version is Tiros N (http://images.spaceref.com/news/2003/09.06.03.noaa-n.lrg.jpg). It was fixed and launched causing speculation how long it will survive especially with no backups available.] The current generation of polar-orbiting weather satellites is critical to weather forecasting because it offers a complete picture of the planet every six-hours. ... it gives meteorologists the ability to track weather systems as they evolve in both time and space. Weather forecasts could be compromised if the launch of the final satellite from the previous generation of polar orbiters, scheduled for late 2007, fails. The chances of a satellite failing on launch are typically about 10 percent. And nobody thought levees would be breached. Sending a few C-130s demonstrated America's resolve to a few Tsunami victims. Fighter planes were never authorized to protect American buildings from hijacked airliners while a president flew around hiding somewhere in the mid west. But this president tells us his job is "Haaa..rrrrr..dddd". And yes that is a direct quote from the mental midget who could not even authorize the USS Bataan to rescue people in nearby New Orleans.

How does one spell impeachment? Oh. That means Cheney would be president. He already is. Even the Three Stoogers could not write a comedy this perverse. Nobody expected a Spanish Inquisition. Or is the screwing of America also called "Mission Accomplished".

Elspode

03-06-2006, 05:23 PM

Dude...the easiest, quickest and cheapest way of proving that there are no serious problems on Earth is to simply avoid trying to find them. No data? No problem.

If satellite and space guys want to get something done, they need to get the funding pipelines flowing and develop something to *sell* to someone. Research costs money unless it results in a consumer product, and right now, no one in Washington can see past the bulging wallet of the nearest lobbyist standing in the receiving line.

marichiko

03-06-2006, 08:29 PM

As a corollary to Patrick's post, If you have already decided there is NO problem, why spend money on a non existent wild goose chase? In addition, if you already know that you are not going to spend a penny on the hypothetical wild goose, even if it was discovered, why bother? The Bushco Gang has managed to stash enough ill gotten gain so that they and their grandchildren will be insulated from any goose dropings in the event such things exist. The rest of you - you're on your own!

PS You make pick up your cooked goose on aisle 7. Please form a single line and proceed in an orderly fashion. There's plenty of cooked geese for everyone.

03-06-2006, 11:54 PM

Stupid me. I forgot. Research, education, innovation, and knowledge are expenses. The only purpose of mankind is profits. How could I have forgotten what they taught me in business school?

Elspode

03-07-2006, 12:07 AM

The business model has changed. It now is only applicable to people who already have money. Besides, anyone can get filthy, stinking rich in this country. Ask Rush Limbaugh...I just heard him say it on the radio this morning. And you know, since he's such an incredible doofus, yet has managed to avoid prison for breaking laws that he would gladly see other people put away for breaking, and still has a pile of cash...I am almost inclined to believe that that old saw is still true. Know what to kiss and when and for how long, and you, too, can become wealthy by pandering to those with money.

xoxoxoBruce

03-09-2006, 08:15 PM

Even a newborn knows enough to suck the teat that has the milk. ;)

Urbane Guerrilla

03-14-2006, 06:42 PM

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

03-14-2006, 09:33 PM

Urbane Guerrilla

03-18-2006, 01:42 AM

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.

03-21-2006, 10:11 AM

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 (http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/03/17/60minutes/main1415985.shtml)
... 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 (http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=213307&postcount=85) . They might discover the party science is wrong. That would only be a waste of money better spent on iraq.

Undertoad

03-21-2006, 11:32 AM

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

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

wolf

03-21-2006, 02:31 PM

Where do you think they get their ideas?

Happy Monkey

03-21-2006, 02:44 PM

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

03-21-2006, 05:14 PM

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.

03-21-2006, 05:16 PM

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

03-21-2006, 05:26 PM

Dude, she means 60 minutes.

xoxoxoBruce

03-21-2006, 08:41 PM

Shhhhh, he's on a role.;)

04-26-2006, 07:12 PM

From the NY Times of 26 Apr 2006: NASA Chief Says Future Flights Will Force Cutbacks in Science (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/26/washington/26nasa.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
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 (http://www.cellar.org/showpost.php?p=213307&postcount=85)

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

04-26-2006, 08:52 PM

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?

Ibram

04-27-2006, 01:32 AM

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

04-27-2006, 09:04 AM

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.

rkzenrage

04-27-2006, 09:12 AM

FYI...
http://www.junkscience.com/

Ibram

04-27-2006, 10:20 AM

well, okay, maybe not far-left, but I still think he spends his days waiting for more anti-right news to post here.

Happy Monkey

04-27-2006, 11:36 AM

It's not his fault that facts are anti-right. ;)

Ibram

04-27-2006, 12:30 PM

You are missing my point, I'm saying he spends all day looking for the stuff, an... Oh, never mind. Yeesh.

Happy Monkey

04-27-2006, 12:37 PM

No, I get your point. The man posts encyclopedias.

Undertoad

04-27-2006, 01:39 PM

tw is not anti-right, he's anti-MBA.

9th Engineer

04-27-2006, 02:43 PM

Anti-MBA???

Happy Monkey

04-27-2006, 03:12 PM

The invention of the MBA is how people who know nothing about what a company makes can be hired as management in that company. Because they know "how to manage", ya know.

04-27-2006, 09:42 PM

You are missing my point, I'm saying he spends all day looking for the stuff, I read a wide variety of information sources for a short period every day. But as noted (did you read this previous post?), since Katrina, stuff is now coming in waves. Patriots everywhere are leaking facts since it is obvious this president does not work for America.

Identified are, for example, three parties: Democrats, Republicans, and Communist. Party loyalists all have one thing in common. They all work first and foremost for the party; America and mankind be damned - secondary. Such party loyal politicians even lie by hiding behind flag pins and waving flags. Where is 'left or right' in that?

Current administration is a classic example of worst management. Ironic he is also an MBA. As Cheney says, “Reagan proved deficits don't matter.” Why do you think they spend money like drunken sailors? To advance America? Of course not. Like drunken sailors, they only have a personal agenda - everyone else be damned. America is leaching money everywhere. Did you read: a $2.4 billion no-bid contract without performance guarantees? Who do you think got that contract? There is no left or right. There are now reams of examples of anti-American management in government.

Only a fool would not see information coming in waves. Some science publications now have an article addressing the president's perversion of science in every issue. How could a decent American no see that obvious fact - and stay silent? Where did that criticism of Rumsfeld in Project for New American Century come from? Read long ago - and now relevant. Where were you when Billy Kristol, et al made those statements? When the subject arose, this example was just sitting their – glaring – waiting to be cited. Meanwhile, did you even know who one author is? Do you so hate America as to not read what Bill Kristol has been saying for a long time? One need not search everyday for what should be common knowledge. Do you know that Bill Kristol is a founding member of PNAC - as was Rumsfeld? The significance of what was written so long ago is damning – and now significant. You don’t like reality? Sorry. Reality that glaring was just begging to be cited here.

Have I posted enough facts to demonstrate this president incompetent – that his administration perverts science for a political agenda? It was called tenacity. Somehow, you have instead taken an emotional response to reams of leaks because of an incompetent president. Why do we not have enough facts? 30+% of Americans are actually in denial. Nothing about left or right. It is about Americans so driven by a party’s political agenda – Democrat, Republican, or Communist – as to not work for America. There are good Americans and then there are political loyalists - extremists - more interested in a political agenda.

Ibram

04-28-2006, 12:42 AM

tw, I agree with all but the most extreme of your views, I was just saying it seems like you have no life, from all the (as Happy Monkey put it) encyclopedias you post. Nothing personal, dude, it's actually very interesting, you're like my own personal newsfeed almost, I was just commenting.

9th Engineer

04-28-2006, 10:14 AM

The invention of the MBA is how people who know nothing about what a company makes can be hired as management in that company. Because they know "how to manage", ya know.

As an engineer-in-training I hold no love for MBA students, trust me. I can't believe people don't understand why we're falling behind China and India(not to mention Japan) in the technology race when our country pays people with a basic MBA more that our phD researchers. OF COURSE we're not going to be able to attract as many bright young students into the sciences, all the money and prestige is in business.

jinx

04-29-2006, 07:34 PM

Reefer madness (http://economist.com/science/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6849915) in the Economist.

Another reason the FDA statement is odd is that it seems to lack common sense. Cannabis has been used as a medicinal plant for millennia. In fact, the American government actually supplied cannabis as a medicine for some time, before the scheme was shut down in the early 1990s. Today, cannabis is used all over the world, despite its illegality, to relieve pain and anxiety, to aid sleep, and to prevent seizures and muscle spasms. For example, two of its long-advocated benefits are that it suppresses vomiting and enhances appetite—qualities that AIDS patients and those on anti-cancer chemotherapy find useful. So useful, in fact, that the FDA has licensed a drug called Marinol, a synthetic version of one of the active ingredients of marijuana—delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC). Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn't what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself.

xoxoxoBruce

04-29-2006, 08:05 PM

Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn't what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself. If a Marinol high isn't what they want, then real weed isn't for them either. :confused:

rkzenrage

04-29-2006, 09:36 PM

If a Marinol high isn't what they want, then real weed isn't for them either. :confused:
That is not accurate at all, a very high percentage of people cannot take Marinol... it makes them very nauseous, oddly enough. I am one of them. I have read that the percentage is as high as 40%.
However, they can take marijuana just fine and have great effects.
Put a little bud on a cracker with some cheese, microwave it for a bit, it helps to activate the THC somehow, and eat it... the effects last much longer and you don't get the negative effects of the smoke.
You just have to keep the cracker down... otherwise you need to try to get an atomizer or large water-pipe to have less impurities and tar if you just can't keep the cracker down.
Another thing most don't know is that if you are in chronic pain you do not normally get "high". Your body is producing cannoids naturally and just uses the extra in the fight against muscle spasms and nerve damage. There are a lot of cannoids in mother's milk to help with the rapid growth of infants, such growth is painful.
BTW, I made plans for just such a large water pipe that takes three trays of ice cubes and a gallon of water. It cuts the amount of product you need to help with your pain in half if you are smoking. I made in in college for a friend who had asthma who was killing himself with smoking the stuff. As an added bonus it saved him a great deal of money in saved marijuana because he needed much less with the pipe. PM me and I will e-mail you the specs.

richlevy

04-29-2006, 10:42 PM

Unfortunately, many users of Marinol complain that it gets them high (which isn't what they actually want) and is not nearly as effective, nor cheap, as the real weed itself.So if a drug company can synthesize it and make a profit off of it, it can be legal. But if anyone could grow it in their garden and use it, then it should be illegal. I still don't understand why libertarians never made more noise about the drug war.

Heck, why stop at marijuana? Why not ban willow bark (aspirin)?

9th Engineer

04-29-2006, 11:17 PM

richlevy

04-29-2006, 11:19 PM

I think you're missing the point. If the government legalizes medicinal Canibis then they effectively legalize it for recreational use as well. There's no good way to regulate it to those who really need it for pain. A medication however, can be controlled.And the real point is, who cares? Prohibition in the United States was a failure for alcohol and it is a failure for marijuana. Just concentrate on prosecuting DUI and DWI and leave people alone in their homes.

rkzenrage

04-29-2006, 11:49 PM

That is not accurate at all, a very high percentage of people cannot take Marinol... it makes them very nauseous, oddly enough. I am one of them. I have read that the percentage is as high as 40%.
However, they can take marijuana just fine and have great effects.
Put a little bud on a cracker with some cheese, microwave it for a bit, it helps to activate the THC somehow, and eat it... the effects last much longer and you don't get the negative effects of the smoke.
You just have to keep the cracker down... otherwise you need to try to get an atomizer or large water-pipe to have less impurities and tar if you just can't keep the cracker down.
Another thing most don't know is that if you are in chronic pain you do not normally get "high". Your body is producing cannoids naturally and just uses the extra in the fight against muscle spasms and nerve damage. There are a lot of cannoids in mother's milk to help with the rapid growth of infants, such growth is painful.
BTW, I made plans for just such a large water pipe that takes three trays of ice cubes and a gallon of water. It cuts the amount of product you need to help with your pain in half if you are smoking. I made in in college for a friend who had asthma who was killing himself with smoking the stuff. As an added bonus it saved him a great deal of money in saved marijuana because he needed much less with the pipe. PM me and I will e-mail you the specs.
BTW, if you are going to do the Leary Biscut... slang for the cracker, do use the cheese. The protein and fat help with the delivery, keeping it down, and helping the effects last longer. It is a lot of fiber and you need those fats and proteins to ease the transition and for the cannoids to "adhere" to while working their way through your digestive system and the rest of your body.
I think you're missing the point. If the government legalizes medicinal Canibis then they effectively legalize it for recreational use as well. There's no good way to regulate it to those who really need it for pain. A medication however, can be controlled.
Those who care about people in pain care.
But if that is not something one cares about, then I guess you have a point.

04-30-2006, 04:58 AM

Adding to a long list of science intentionally destroyed or left to die, the Hubble Space Telescope, numerous satellite and other science (to promote a totally useless man to Moon and Mars program), more than 50% reduction in government software research, an obvious loss of major science laboratories such as Bell Labs and Xerox Palo Alto Research, stem cell research, and of course what promises to be as important to the future as a transistor was to my generation - quantum physics. The Economist only adds to what has happened in America. From The Economist of 27 Apr 2006 entitled The collider calamity (http://www.economist.com/science/displayStory.cfm?story_id=6849897): Near Waxahachie in Texas, there is a hole in the ground. Not just any old hole. This one is almost 23km long and curves in what would be, if it were extended, a circular loop. It is the site of what was intended to be the world's biggest and best particle accelerator, a machine capable of unlocking some of the fundamental secrets of nature itself. Ever since the project to build it was cancelled in 1993, after nearly $2 billion had been spent on construction, America's lead in particle physics has been shrinking. This week, a report by the country's National Research Council (NRC) outlined what America can do to regain its pre-eminence.

The outlook is grim. After decades of making discoveries about the fundamental building blocks of nature, America's particle-physics colliders are to close. The Tevatron at Fermilab, near Chicago, is the world's highest-energy particle-smasher. ...

America's other accelerators are in trouble, too. Work at the Stanford Linear Accelerator Centre is moving away from particle physics and into generating high-energy X-rays. Funding for the Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider at the Brookhaven National Laboratory is so tight that the machine managed to keep running only after a philanthropist intervened. The New York Times continues on 30 Apr 2006: Science Panel Report Says Physics in U.S. Faces Crisis (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/30/us/30physics.html?_r=1&oref=slogin)
But just as things are becoming exciting in particle physics, support for such work in the United States has stagnated, and many large projects are closing down. Last winter, scientists at the Brookhaven National Laboratory on Long Island kept a major experiment going only after James Simons, an investment manager and mathematician, raised $13 million for the laboratory. ...
The most powerful accelerator now operating, the Tevatron at the Fermi National Laboratory outside Chicago, is scheduled to shut down in 2010, leaving Fermilab with an uncertain future. Welfare for fundamental science research? Appreciate why. Three years ago we discussed the difference between basic research and application research; and why the two must be separate operations. How can science prosper in a nation where so few understand even basic science concepts (and are therefore so easily deceived using spin such as intelligent design). Even Leigh University - nickname the Engineers - changed their name to "Mountain Hawks" and now graduates more business majors than engineers. Why is this remembered? The last person seen wearing a Lehigh sweat shirt; I asked him what his major was: business.

A previous discussion demonstrated a problem: Wanted: A Gravedigger for NASA? (http://www.cellar.org/showthread.php?p=60074#post60074)
Many did not understand a difference between basic research (that once was done in Bell Labs) and application research (that was forced upon the Labs by AT&T MBAs).

Again from The Economist: Many American particle physicists have switched their attentions to the LHC. And while physicists dream of shiny new machines, none is scheduled to be built in America. No science planned in this subject? A science so fundamentally essential that quantum physics is even why disk drives store so much data.

From where did America gets its science leadership? Hitler literally stripped Europe of science and technology - driving so many famous scientists to America when one could become an immigrant within days: Fermi and Sklar (nuclear fission), von Brahm (rocketry), Einstein, Schrödinger (without his cat), Edward Teller (father of American hydrogen bomb), Pauli (uncertainty principle) ... just some of the more popular ones. Germany is estimated to have driven out about 25% of their physicists alone. Gottingen university was once one of the most famous centers of mathematics. A Nazi minister asked a famous mathematician David Hilbert about the state of mathematics "now that it is free of Jews." Hilbert replied, "Mathematics in Gottingen? There is really none any more." Why did America become world leaders in math?

From 1901 to 1932, Germany had 14 Nobel laureates in chemistry; America had 2. From 1932 to 1982, America had 24 Nobel laureates; Germany only 10. Do you think Americans are just naturally better innovators? Science and technology must be nutured by a society and leaders that understands what science is - and why immigrants are so important. Current president is an MBA - with all the knowledge that is to often found in MBA types.

Today, even stem cell research must move overseas because religion (what some adametly worship when educated in myths rather than reality) is imposed on science. Even a completely brain dead woman becomes a religous vendetta. We are even refighting battles over creationism - with some fancy title so as to confuse our uneducated: intelligent design. This because so many Americans have so little grasp of technology - also called reality.

Superconductivity was discovered in lead in about 1910. It took till 1950s to eventually get a theory as to how superconductivity works. But since we don't understand the underlying subatomic principles behind it, then superconductivity has been about 'lets try this one to see what it does'. Science by using a roulette wheel in a desperate hope that we may finally understand why it works and then get a useful superconductor. Only recently has anyone finally explained why so called high temperature superconductors work - and why they are completely different from low temperature superconductors. Where was this work done? Where basic research in quantum physics is moving. Europe - where science is fleeing America for so many reasons - including fear, security, and funding.

American universities have already warned of a 20% reduction in overseas science students - a major source of American science. Fatherland Security requirements are cited as a major reason. Posted previously was a Chinese delegation for a new possible WiFi (developed in China) that were suddenly and at the last minute denied visas to the Orland IEEE conference for this technology. These Chinese were security risks, according to George Jr's administration?

Cited are many reasons why science is slowly diminishing. It does not help that our government is now so science adverse and so wants to fix the world with military solutions (as religous extremists have attempted all through history). Why are the French now world leaders in space launches?

But most damning have been my meetings with so many engineers and programmers. I now routinely ask, "Would you want you child to be an engineer?" A question asked because EDN also asked that question. Literally everyone said no. As two programmers from India today told me, they are amazed at how many students taking software engineering don't even know how to program; don't even know at least one programming language. But then one (so called) software engineer recently graduated from U of Indiana only knows how to write scripts. Ask her about sorting algorithms? She need not know that 'stuff'.

So why would we want a super collider?. That $8billion was better spent on ISS - that does zero science - and has now cost more than $80billion. The ISS is probably the most visible spacecraft circling the earth at dawn or dusk - therefore it promotes America? More than 10 super colliders and increasing; and ISS still does nothing useful. But to George Jr, that is science. Yes, even the DoD software research budget has been decreased by well over 50% in the past three years. He withholds money for things that don't promote the invasion of Iran? Or did god tell him to do it? It explains why so much science is diminishing.

richlevy

04-30-2006, 10:53 AM

I enjoyed you post, TW. The only thing I would caution you against is your use of superlatives.

So why would we want a super collider?. That $8billion was better spent on ISS - that does zero science - and has now cost more than $80billion.
Zero science (http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/station/science/index.html)? You may not agree with the goals or choice of experiments, but you should not ignore what is being done. Since you are an engineer, I expect you to be very careful with the use of 'zero' and '%100', realizing that such concepts do not always translate well into reality.

It is true that many of the experiments they mention have to do with long term healh issues related to zero gravity, as well as issues related to equipment exposure to solar radiation, things that would mostly be useful for long term space missions.

I agree that I do not see collider research being done in space, but I do see some physics experiments.

On Earth, the BCAT-3 colloids aren't very surprising -- they just sink to the bottom of the container. But in the absence of gravity, they behave like slow atoms, allowing scientists to model all sorts of atomic behavior.

According to the BCAT-3 scientists, studying colloids in space could lead to revolutionary advances in technology, such as computers that operate on light, new pharmaceuticals, clean power sources and unique propellants for rocket engines.

BCAT-3 focuses on two frontiers of science: critical points and crystallization.You could argue that money spent on physics on earth can provide more answers for less resources, in other words be a better value, but to say that zero science is being done on the space station weakens your argument by demonstrating bias.

xoxoxoBruce

04-30-2006, 04:27 PM

And he forgot to say "mental midget".
Just kidding TW, good post. :D

04-30-2006, 05:03 PM

I enjoyed you post, TW. The only thing I would caution you against is your use of superlatives. When something is 0.007 inches, then how many inches are measured by a ruler? Zero. Once something is that near zero, then it is zero. Engineers deal in significant digits. Signifcantly - ISS does zero science.

There is science ongoing on the ISS. So much science as to be zero. ISS required three people just to maintain it. Only a fourth crewman provideds sufficient labor to do any science. No superlatives. If doing well less than 1% of science intended, then that is zero science.

Much of the human duration science that can be done well protected by earth's environment is done. ISS was considered for mothballing until the Shuttle could start flying again because it has no purpose. Russian opposed that decision quite strongly due to lessons learned from Mir. The only reason two spacemen remain in ISS - to keep it operational. No practical science exists in ISS until it can support a fourth crewman. It is a money pit.

Why was Columiba carrying Space lab? Space Lab was the only place where manned science could be performed. Why not on ISS? Insufficient resources to do any science in ISS. $80 billion is a lot of science better performed by satellites, robots, - and a rescued Hubble Space Telescope.

ISS does zero science. No superlative. Ongoing science is mostly show stuff - such as throwing out a space suit with a radio inside. As noted before, I would get NASA's Tech Briefs. Almost all NASA budget is for manned space. And yet most all science in those Tech Briefs came from unmanned science - that now dimishing to less than $3billion in a budget of $80billion annually. Where is all this ISS science? It does not exist.

Do we believe the propaganda? Or do we first demand numbers? ISS does virtually zero science.

Meanwhile notice what those NY Times and Economist reports say - no new sub atomic particle research machines planned and existing ones are closing in America - even for lack of money.

Also IEEE Spectrum reported on a large meeting to learn how to send men to Mars. Only way known considering our knowledge of materials, was to surround those astronauts with something like five feet of water. Not economically feasible. Cosmic rays - not a problem to ISS astronauts - would all but kill an astronaut to Mars. The final conclusion: every known means of protecting Mars astronauts does not work. We still have too much research to do here before we can send men to Mars. And what is happening to that research? It is dying in America - in places such as ISS.

rkzenrage

05-01-2006, 02:49 AM

The conversation on the last couple of pages of this thread belonged in here as well....
http://cellar.org/showthread.php?t=10544&page=2

Urbane Guerrilla

05-01-2006, 06:57 PM

Mundane Gorilla

05-01-2006, 09:06 PM

I'm never impressed when tw is being a crank -- I'm surprised anyone else countenances it.

I'm moved to ask, tw: what language was your first? You tend to use English like someone from Eastern Europe.

Nor is anyone impressed when your being your usual tool self either.

What difference does it make where he is from or what his primary language is? Do you sum someone up by their race and or language preference? Or was that crack meant to be comedic in some way? If that was the intention you missed your mark.

Aside from slumming around in the political and current events forums with snide remarks do you actually contribute anything?

Now please make some profound statement regarding my low post count and get back to your scheduled hateful little life.

9th Engineer

05-01-2006, 10:57 PM

TW sums up exactly why I plan on moving out of the US once I graduate. I am currently a sophmore bioengineer, and I can't imagine working anywhere in this country. I should add one comment however, religeous crusades probably have much less effect on why I'm leaving as opposed to other aspects mentioned. I think that Americans as a whole have abandoned science. At my university (U of Pittsburgh) we are a significant minority, and the general attitude among the non-scientists is that science is some wierd thing that antisocial people do in dark rooms. It's this attitude that has convinced me to leave. Instead of working for the US government or a US university I will further the goals of whatever international corporation will give me the funding and equipment. My attitude is hardly rare as well. The general consensus is that anyone who can work abroad, should. When Americans are outraged that a corporation has all the rights to the next leap in cancer treatment or the like, they can look inwards for the answer.

xoxoxoBruce

05-03-2006, 10:06 PM

snip~ At my university (U of Pittsburgh) we are a significant minority, and the general attitude among the non-scientists is that science is some wierd thing that antisocial people do in dark rooms. ~snip
It's retro, 9th. that's exactly the way it was before sputnik/JFK started the "space race" and the big push for math and engineering majors. Slide rules became status symbols and engineers got groupies, because it was suddenly glamorous.

Then a great pall scudded (I've been waiting since high school to use that word) over the nation and blocked out the light of humanity and reason. It is a scourge on our souls, called MBA. :(

Undertoad

11-18-2006, 09:11 AM

McCain: Bush Breaks Laws to Hide Global Warming Data (http://www.tpmmuckraker.com/archives/002011.php)

Happy Monkey

12-14-2006, 08:28 PM

Periodic Table of Perverting Science for Politics (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-guide-to-political.html)

12-14-2006, 10:10 PM

10,000 American scientists including 52 Noble Laurets are complaining that George Jr is perverting science for political purposes. Discussed here previously with contention were those aluminum tubes that were obviously not for nuclear weapons even before Iraq was invaded.

As Happy Monkey noted, Union of Concerned Scientists (http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/interference/a-to-z-alphabetical.html) provided this summary of science intentionaly pervert for political purposes. At this point, only an anti-American extremist (also called a Republican who votes the party line) could deny this lists:
A: Army Science Board
Ab: Abstinence Only Sex Education Science
Ac: Arms Control Advisory Panel
Ae: Abstinence Only Sex Education Cirriculum
Ai: Airborne Bacteria
Aq: National Ambient Air Quality Standards
At: Atrazine
B: Bull trout
Bc: Breast Cancer
C: Climate Change
Cg: Cattle Grazing
Da: NIH Drug Abuse Panel
E: Endangered Species Act
Ec: Emergency Contraception
F: Forest Management
Fe: Fuel Efficiency
Fi: NIH Fogarty International
Fp: Florida Panther
Fs: UCS Federal Scientists Surveys
G: Endangered Species Genetics
H: HIV/AIDS Education
Hc: Hurricanes
Hg: Mercury
Ia: International AIDS Conference
It: Aluminum Tubes in Iraq
J: James Hansen
K: Ketek
L: Libraries
Lp: Childhood Lead Poisoning Panel
Mi: Prescription Drugs Mifepristone and Misoprostol
Mm: Marbled Murrelet
Mr: Mountaintop Removal Mining
Nn: National Nuclear Security Administration Panel
Ns: Nerve Stimulator
O: Oil Extraction
Pc: President's Council on Bioethics
Pd: Prarie Dogs
Pe: Pesticides
Pl: Post Disturbance Logging
Pm: Particulate Matter Pollution
Pp: Plywood Plant
Pr: OMB Peer Review
Q: Air Quality Proposals
R: Red Frog
Rc: Roundtail Chub
Re: Reproductive Health Advisory Committee
Rp: Racial Profiling
S: Sage Grouse
Sa: Endangered Salmon
Se: Selenium
So: Sonar and Whales
Sp: Spotted Owl
St: Sexually Transmitted Disease Panel at CDC
T: Toxic Chemicals Release
Tr: Trumpter Swans
Tr: Tabernamontana Rotensis
V: Vetting of experts on WHO Panel
Vo: School Vouchers
Ws: Workplace Safety Panel
X: Vioxx
Z: Ground Zero

Of course these are the same people who insist we are winning in Iraq while denying any chance of victory in Afghanistan - all for a political agenda and presidential legacy.

rkzenrage

12-15-2006, 02:14 PM

What is ID but politics.
No science gets into textbooks by political voting... why would the ID people not want theirs to go through the same scientific rigors and path as any other hypothesis to get to textbooks as any other theory?

12-15-2006, 09:53 PM

Many have little idea how widespread are scams and misinformation. You can buy devices to discharge the sky so that lightning will not strike (Early Streamer Emission (ESE) lightning rods). Some will even add radioactive materials that somehow make them better. Or Geritol for reduced aging. Pond's Institute for younger lasting skin. Power strip protectors so hyped in Circuit City. Atkin's diet. Head On. Listerine. In each case, they don't even try to make claims based in science and logic. Somehow observation or feelings alone is proof enough.

Add to that list Intelligent Design. They don't even try to meet the well proven benchmark that make science successful and productive. Somehow we are just suppost to know - and that is sufficient.

Above is a list of items to benchmark yourself. Do you demand based upon principles taught in school science? Or do you just know? Did I mention I know this Prince in Nigeria who needs your help.

Clodfobble

12-15-2006, 11:08 PM

Head On.

"Apply directly to the forehead!!"

9th Engineer

12-16-2006, 02:00 AM

Right, you can't just drop science and logic once you leave the classroom, it has to apply to every decision that gets made. Every decision, most people get stuck on that.

Urbane Guerrilla

12-24-2006, 04:03 AM

Nor is anyone impressed when your being your usual tool self either.

You're trying too hard -- to be annoying, and apparently that is the sum total of your ambition. Enjoy being laughed at by nicer people than you, and go fuck yourself and put a smile on your face. Fuck yourself twice, while you're at it, and put two smiles there -- a bit of holiday cheer.

What difference does it make where he is from or what his primary language is? Do you sum someone up by their race and or language preference? Or was that crack meant to be comedic in some way? If that was the intention you missed your mark.

I'm curious. Having some familiarity with Slavic languages, I'm seeing what looks like an eastern European pattern to tw's sentences. It would also account for his distinctly Soviet view of history -- and of U.S. foreign policy, for that matter. Tw's non-intelligent, generally inadequate spelling gets particularly ill considered any time he faces a foreign language quotation or name -- "von Brahm" for von Braun, quotha! Does tw expect us to be as ignorant as he? He's doomed to disappointment. This is a man with zero copyediting skill. Your desperate attempt to find prejudice here will also be disappointed.

Aside from slumming around in the political and current events forums with snide remarks do you actually contribute anything?

And your own stellar contributions under any handle amount to what, again? Evidently, you don't visit Food and Drink much either, you non-searching, ignorant, easily-slapped putz.

Now please make some profound statement regarding my low post count and get back to your scheduled hateful little life.

And you demonstrate your saintly degree of enlightenment in this way, do you?