Slashdot Mirror
NASA Science Under Attack
The Bad Astronomer writes "The New York Times is reporting that NASA science is being harassed and even sometimes suppressed by presidential political appointees. The article details how NASA scientists dealing with such topics as global warming and the Big Bang are under attack for ideological and religious reasons." The submitter also has a running commentary summarizing a bit of the background of the story on his blog.
Besides, there is a long history of suppressing real science because of political, economic or religious belief.
You have that in europe too (at least the former two), but to a lesser degree. The latter is non-existant, luckily.
It's not real science if it is political, economic or religious belief. It's science when it's proven, demonstrated, controlled, repeated and mathematically demonstrable.
Most expert forums in the UK for example steer clear of unresolvable issues. So when Lovelock can show that his daisies won't grow because of the output of such dirty things as that gianormous chimney: Hawaii; or one of those lichen encrusted ones from a mill in the northern British Midlands, maybe other sensible groups will give him living space. Ditto for the one from the article.
I suppose it has not crossed the blinkered minds of those affected by that modern hypocritical religion; evolution, that these things have occurred in times past and that climate modelling isn't very good.
With the finest computers in the world and a host of interconnections with others, weather forecasters have great difficulty in going past 5 days. They can't get past this wednesday at the moment.
And any long term stuff needs careful moderation.
A religion that can't tolerate satire is a weak religion indeed.
such a young life, wasted
Wasted?! This sycophant is probably earning a six figure salary and hob-nobs with ultramarine-blue bloods every fortnight. All at the tender age of 24.
The only loser here is his misfortunate young wife, who's had her salad days cut short so she can stay at home and raise this monstrosities offspring and service him sexually wherever and whenever he chooses.
Now that's a wasted life.
May the Maths Be with you!
"In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild..."
:-)
Sorry to be offtopic, but Flint Wild is such a cool sounding name. "Hi, my name's Flint Wild." Sorta like Marty McFly saying that his name was Clint Eastwood in BTF III. Are you sure you didn't get the names mixed up in the story
Anand Rangarajan anand@cise.ufl.edu
I certainly don't want my tax dollars to support every candidate that fills in the right forms. I'd rather put my money behind campaigns that actually represent what I think.
Well, I can understand that point of view, but I'd like to give you some things to think about..
In my opinion, it is more important to maintain a democratic system then to maintain a specific candidate or party. Because of that, I want my tax money to first of all be used to keep the democratic system working, even if that means part of the money will fund campeigns that I do not support.
Also, when parties get their campeign money from their supporters directly, that just results in concentrating power there where the money is, ie, people or corporations wiht a lot of money can directly buy influence. That is not how a one man one vote system is supposed to work, there the money is supposed to be of no relevance at all.
I don't have the perfect solution, but to me tax money being used to fund a democratic system and the parties in it seems a better guarantee for a democratic system then effectively letting people buy power and cover it with a thin veil of elections.