Slashdot Log In
NASA Science Under Attack
Posted by
ScuttleMonkey
on Mon Feb 06, 2006 07:33 AM
from the when-is-science-not-under-attack dept.
from the when-is-science-not-under-attack dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
To some other influential republicans, however, science is already too left, and therefore, not right.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
believe that you are given a magic 'truth/morality compass' by the holy spirit and therefore have the magical ability to determine the rightness of science without resort to arguments or facts
You said it perfectly. It's not just the religious crowd that feel this way, although I'm sure it's much more prevelant among them. Hopefully in the near future this belief you speak of will wear off... Perhaps I'm being overly optimistic, but it seems it wears a little thinner with each passing day. Then things like I.D. come up and throw us back a few centuries in progress.
Don't suppose you have any ideas on what it takes to facilitate this change?
I can't believe this crap got modded up (Score:5, Insightful)
If I told you that my grandfather was German, would you immediately assume that he was an escaped Nazi war criminal? If I told you he was Russian would you assume he was one of Stalin's NKVD tortue specialists? If I told you he was of italian extraction and used to live in New York city, would you assume he was John Gotti?
It is clear that you don't know the difference between a mainstream Republican and a christian fundamentalist. The two are hardly similar to anyone actually familiar with then. If you can't tell the difference it is only because you are an extremist yourself. Only an extremest is unable discern differences in those they are ideologically opposed to.
I'm an agnostic libertarian who votes Republican, does that make me a "fundy" as well?
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
I've heard it said that the repubs don't like scientists because they tend to vote democratic, but they've really brought that on themselves. Their real problem with science - and indeed with Reason in general - is that it often limits their power, which in their minds should be total and absolute now that they have all three branches of government locked up. Their only serious opponent now is Truth, at least until the next elections.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Interesting)
Both parties love spending tax dollars. Democrats are honest about it, and more often than not programs pushed by Democrats are well run and provide services to those who are without. Republicans lie when they say that they are the party of small government. Clinton cut the share of the total economy taken by the federal government; G.W. Bush has grown it dramatically.
Republicans frequently say they have passed tax cuts. They're lying again; they have only passed tax deferrments. They increase spending dramatically, cut taxes, and borrow the difference. The government debt held by the public was at $3.3 Trillion and falling at the end of Fiscal Year 2001. After years of Republican rule, the debt held by the public is at $4.6 Trillion and rising. Interest payments on that debt increase have to come from taxes.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is the difference between science and politics.
In politics, the only thing that matters is the impression that you create. People vote for the impression, and live with the result.
In science, we try to keep politics to the minimum, and experimental investigation of empirical reality is one of the primary means of doing so. So a scientist, unaware of the impressions created by the two political parties in the U.S., looking at the data, would conclude that Democrats were the party of fiscal probity and Republicans were the party of spending money like drunken cowboys.
That people continue to trot out this incredible statement that the Republicans are less likely to run up a huge deficit and Democrats are less likely to balance the budget, when for the past twenty years exactly the opposite has been true, is a measure of how alien and anomalous science is in human experience.
This is why science is precious and must be defended. It is the only way we know of getting past impressions to something that at the very least is not the diametric opposite of the truth.
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Insightful)
But their ongoing proposition isn't to spend less, it's to tax more. That's not the way to grow the economy.
Actually, it does, in a much bigger and more sustainable way over the long run. The premise, as I see it, is to tax the most weathly citizens and redistrubite that wealth as social, environmental, education, infrastrcuture, and law enforcement services to the rest of the people, enabling them to succeed in life. The more people that make money, the more people that spend it, the stronger the economy. My wife and I make a decent living, and what we pay in taxes to Federal and State is over $40,000 a year, so I think I can speak on this. Do I mind paying that much in taxes? Not really. I can open my door and see the police and fire department at work keeping my neighborhood safe, clean well maintained roads, excellent parks, schools, and hospitals. Not to mention, I like to know my tax money goes toward helping others get the same chances I had, or even helping others recover from the same issues I had as a teenager. If it wasn't for the government aid that got me into college, I don't where I would be today.
The 'trickle down' method is a bit different, but revolves around lowering the cost of doing business, so those business can hire more people or pay higher wages, and spending the minimum possible everything else. (except defense) The premise being, less government. I'm not really sure I want, less police when there is crime, less fireman when my house might burn, less road workers, less park rangers, less schools, less help for the poor, less hospitals, less clean air and water. I like those things so, I'm willing to pay. The only thing I want less of is war.
I have a friend who lives in Waynesboro VA. This is out in the middle of nowhere in Virginia, all rural. My wife and I went to visit him and he has a bueatiful stream in his backyard, perfect trout stream. I told him, "Man, do you ever fish in there?". He laughed and said "Shit, that stream hasn't had fish in it since the Dow plant opened up. I looked out my window one day and they were all day, smelled something fiece."
Re:Old but with a new twist. (Score:5, Informative)
Bullshit. The happy budget position the Clinton got to enjoy had most to do with (a) recognizing that deficits matter, (b)making the politically hard choice to raise taxes in 1993, and (c) holding the line on overall spending through both his terms.
Those wise choices kept the economy growing, and the deficit shrinking.
The recession started in March 2001, and lasted until November 2001
5% of the 2002 deficit is attributable to reduced economic activity from the recession of 2001. 70% is the tax cut, and 25% is increased spending.
In the current "recovery", job growth has trailed dramatically the average job growth of all the other post-WWII recessions/recoveries. So it is easy to make the case that current policies are hampering, not helping, the economy.
Budget deficits are a simple arithmatical consequence of decreasing income and increasing spending. Republicans say one thing, that they are for small government and low taxes, and then do something else, big-government spending, and not paying for that spending. And to make it all even worse, Republican spending tends to maximize the benefits for the politically well-connected, like the Medicaid Part D plan that benefits pharmaceutical manufacturers and insurance companies far more than it does old people who need medication.
Typical "have my cake and eat it too" respone. Government programs have to be paid for. It is irresponsible to spend like gangbusters and pass tax cuts so that future generations have to pay for that spending in addition to what benefits they want government to provide.
In 1993, all the usual Republican suspects whined and gnashed their teeth that Clinton's deficit reduction package would sink the economy. It did no such thing, and the longest, strongest economic expansion in history happened. In 2000, Bush campaigned on "giving the people back their money", and with 1+1+1=5 arithmatic, persuaded folks that his first tax cut wouldn't use up the whole surplus. It did, and the economic solution to good times (tax cuts) was applied to the recession. More tax cuts in 2002, and again more tax cuts in 2003. The economic recovery is the weakest one yet.
The article in full (Score:4, Informative)
Not His Own Words
Climate Expert Says NASA Tried to Silence Him (January 29, 2006)
"It is not the job of public-affairs officers," Dr. Griffin wrote in an e-mail message to the agency's 19,000 employees, "to alter, filter or adjust engineering or scientific material produced by NASA's technical staff."
The statement came six days after The New York Times quoted the scientist, James E. Hansen, as saying he was threatened with "dire consequences" if he continued to call for prompt action to limit emissions of heat-trapping gases linked to global warming. He and intermediaries in the agency's 350-member public-affairs staff said the warnings came from White House appointees in NASA headquarters.
Other National Aeronautics and Space Administration scientists and public-affairs employees came forward this week to say that beyond Dr. Hansen's case, there were several other instances in which political appointees had sought to control the flow of scientific information from the agency.
They called or e-mailed The Times and sent documents showing that news releases were delayed or altered to mesh with Bush administration policies.
In October, for example, George Deutsch, a presidential appointee in NASA headquarters, told a Web designer working for the agency to add the word "theory" after every mention of the Big Bang, according to an e-mail message from Mr. Deutsch that another NASA employee forwarded to The Times.
And in December 2004, a scientist at NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory complained to the agency that he had been pressured to say in a news release that his oceanic research would help advance the administration's goal of space exploration.
On Thursday night and Friday, The Times sent some of the documents to Dr. Griffin and senior public-affairs officials requesting a response.
While Dr. Griffin did not respond directly, he issued the "statement of scientific openness" to agency employees, saying, "NASA has always been, is and will continue to be committed to open scientific and technical inquiry and dialogue with the public."
Because NASA encompasses a nationwide network of research centers on everything from cosmology to climate, Dr. Griffin said, some central coordination was necessary. But he added that changes in the public-affairs office's procedures "can and will be made," and that a revised policy would "be disseminated throughout the agency."
Asked if the statement came in response to the new documents and the furor over Dr. Hansen's complaints, Dr. Griffin's press secretary, Dean Acosta, replied by e-mail:
"From time to time, the administrator communicates with NASA employees on policy and issues. Today was one of those days. I hope this helps. Have a good weekend."
Climate science has been a thorny issue for the administration since 2001, when Mr. Bush abandoned a campaign pledge to restrict power plant emissions of carbon dioxide, the main heat-trapping gas linked to global warming, and said the United States would not join the Kyoto Protocol, the first climate treaty requiring reductions.
But the accusations of political interference with the language of news releases and other public information on science go beyond climate change.
In interviews this week, more than a dozen public-affairs officials, along with half a dozen agency scientists, spoke of growing efforts by political appointees to control the flow of scientific information.
In the months before the 2004 election, according to interviews and some documents, these appointees sought to review news releases and to approve or deny news media requests to interview NASA scientists.
Repeatedly that year, public-affairs directo
Login Information (Score:4, Informative)
NoReg NYT Link Generator (Score:5, Informative)
Try it. [nytimes.com]
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:5, Interesting)
Ok, normally I don't respond to trolls, but I'm not quite through my first coffee of the day, so what the heck...
First off, the observations of the CMB and the Hubble flow demonstrate that the Universe was smaller and hotter in the past. It's pretty simple physics, I'm sure you can figure it out without hurting yourself.
Second, you must be channelling Halton Arp: he tends to pull numbers out of his *ss without any data to back them up. He also tends to point at random line-of-sight alignments of objects at different distances and make weird claims about how those objects support his bogus claim of the day.
Third, superluminal motions are a geometric effect and do not show real 'faster than light' motions. This was explained in the 60s.
Fourth, time for more coffee.
Have a nice day!
Re:Big Bang is not a "theory" (Score:4, Informative)
Wrong Big Bang is a Theory. A theory is a hypothesis with evidence pointing to that fact. While theorys may not be what is happening it seems to fit the data well, in the experements. A Law which are quite rare in science is when something is proven without a doubt.
People need to learn these basic concepts to understand science. Science is more of a processes of finding fact vs. soldid fact itself.
The more evidence you have for your theory the better your theory is and more widly excepted as truth as we know it.
Back in time truth was considered the sun went around the earth, and anyone who said otherwise without the evidence would be considered wrong/evil (as it was the style at the time), and in general they would be wrong sciencetificly because there would be no proof that he was indeed correct. This was finally change when we had the ability to map the other planets movements to realize their orbits would be simpler if they went around the sun with us as well. Thus the new truth was the sun was the center of our solar system.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
An analogy: if I take my car to the mechanic and he says that my defrobinator is broken, but won't suggest a course of action, I'll never go to him again. I expect my mechanic to not only find the problem but also *fix* it.
I'd be concerned about the scientist's biases if he were suggesting a course of action counter to what the research indicated, but if his thoughts follow that research, what's the concern? That he's biased towards facts and away from myth?
Progress is the job of a scientist. Improving the human condition and furthering our knowledge of universe. 'Presenting research' is the method, not the goal.
Re:So what? (Score:5, Insightful)
Of course it is. Who is more qualified? (Well, according to TFA, 24-year-old PR hacks.)
Meet George Deutsch (Score:5, Informative)
His memo reads:
Religious issues at NASA. I only wish this were some loony story, but it appears legit.
Given his young age (twenty four), you might imagine George Deutsch having an impeccable resume. He graduated in 2003 from Texas A&M with a degree in journalism, then in 2004 was an intern in the Bush-Cheney re-election "war room". Here is a link [salon.com] to some of his articles he wrote while at the Texas A&M Battalion.
These people's religion vitiates *everything* (Score:5, Insightful)
The position that IDers' "Teach kids the controversy" position was a slippery slope has just been vindicated, again. Deutsch is right, his position is "more than a science issue." No matter what the area of discussion, he's going to bounce things off his religious beliefs. The thing is, his religious beliefs aren't about truth or morality or justice; they're about reinforcing human authority to speak for God with absolute authority. If it's convenient to cast doubt on a murder conviction because it'll fan the spectacular claims of rampant satanic cults running loose in America, so be it. That helps keep the flock in line. Good deal, write it up George.
In a theocracy, religion gets inserted into every area of life, with the aim being to reinforce the power of those in charge. That's what these people want. They want scientists to be running scared from the local party representative. It's their very own Cultural Revolution, albeit with different idols to worship. And it can happen, even here.
Re:Meet George Deutsch (Score:4, Interesting)
I'm an atheist and this doesn't sound wrong to me; it's a theory. What's the big deal in insisting it be called such? Is the truth so damaging to somebody's agenda here?
IT's not about whether it is a theory (Score:5, Insightful)
Does the minister of your local church teach the controversy? Or does he teach that ID is right and everything else is wrong? Should he be forced to teach the controvercy and not impose any particular idea?
A minister of a church can teach whatever idea he wants, including ID, because it is an institution of religious philosophy and that is what they do.
On the other hand, NASA is an institute of science. What they do there is science research. They will refer to all sorts of scientific ideas there because it is part of their job. Discussing ID is not part of their job because it is not relevent to what they are doing. So they shorthand the word "theory" out for brevity and convenience.
So:
1. Which institutions should be allowed to stick to their basic reason for existance and be allowed to narrowly focus on that topic (be it theology or research)?
2. which institutions should be forced to "teach the controvercy" even though it may not be relevent to them?
Should churches be forced to "teach the controvercy" rather than just teach genesis? Or is "teaching the controvercy" only something the other side should? Should they be allowed to shorten their discussions so they focus only on those aspects that are important and relevant to them?
I'm not looking for right or wrong. I'm looking for consistency. If you have a rule, apply it the same everywhere, not just where it is most convenient to one point of view.
Re:Meet George Deutsch (Score:5, Insightful)
1) A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
This is the one that most people are using when they're talking about things like the big bang theory.
6) An assumption based on limited information or knowledge; a conjecture.
AKA guess, hunch, belief. This is the one that ID proponents seem to be using to defend their use of the word. Heck, it confused me when I first encountered the scientific term, but IIRC that was something I learned in school before turning 10, so intentionally misleading people over the definitions is both annoying, and sad in that its so successful.
Sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
such a young life, wasted
The Big Bang memo came from Mr. Deutsch, a 24-year-old presidential appointee in the press office at NASA headquarters whose résumé says he was an intern in the "war room" of the 2004 Bush-Cheney re-election campaign. A 2003 journalism graduate of Texas A&M, he was also the public-affairs officer who sought more control over Dr. Hansen's public statements.
In October 2005, Mr. Deutsch sent an e-mail message to Flint Wild, a NASA contractor working on a set of Web presentations about Einstein for middle-school students. The message said the word "theory" needed to be added after every mention of the Big Bang.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
you have to feel pity , that such a young person (24) can have have such a magnitude of delusion and be in a position to corrupt others with their issues
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Insightful)
Given the way things are going, this might be a better way to bet your career at that age, than siding with the left wing.
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Informative)
The bad thing on his part is that he hasn't even done his research on religion. If you read, Stephen Hawking's "Brief History of Time", he talks about how the Vatican in the mid 80's had declared that the Big Bang theory conforms to their doctrine and is the preferable sicentific explanation. Wheras, Hawking had expressed his doubt at one time shortly before this proclamation that there might have not been a singular big bang, but a possible "no begining, no end universe" (which he of course speculates but doesn't really go for) which would make Creationism impossible.
In fact the Big Bang is almost required for a creationist type of event.
The Vatican (Score:5, Insightful)
The Vatican are wise to do so. Big reason: they screwed up horribly over Galileo, they took way too long to catch on to the whole Darwin thing, and they don't want to look like fools again. The Vatican is therefore keen to show the world that religion can coexist with a rational understanding of the universe.
So: they are interested in scientific research, especially when it treads on ground that used to be exclusively God's. They loved the Big Bang; it's a singular creation event of absolutely enormous glory and power. Relativity and cosmology all come down, in the end, to something not far from Let there be light! No wonder the Vatican are happy. That's a tremendously impressive god, with a fabulous sense of style.
And how about evolution? How much cleverer of God to set up the system such that life can build itself! And on such a simple principle, too. That's the work of not just an intelligent designer, but a competent one. Much better than the clumsy, cack-handed work of a god who has to do everything himself.
Now, if you're an ancient religious organisation, planning to still be around and relevant a thousand years from now, isn't this the way you'd go about it? You don't fight against the discoveries made about the world by reason; Augustine understood that. You incorporate them. You show that they're fully consistent with what you've taught all along - if only you take a larger, more enlightened view of things. A view so much closer to God's, don't you think? And how better to understand God than to understand his works?
Re:Sad really (Score:5, Informative)
[Deutsch's email] continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Or is that the worst part? It's certainly the scariest.
NASA as a research center vs. pretty space thing (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other hand, "scientific research" at NASA is a problem. Here we have a prominent government research facility that does all kinds of research: research that requires large teams, or specialized equipment, or a permanent base beyond what the worlds' research universities can supply. And, unfortunately, much of the information it puts out, particularly in the sublunar spheres, tends to be either insignificant in terms of Lockheed Martin's participation, or contrary to the government's stated policy on environmental issues or the imminent second coming of Christ.
This administration has exercised tighter control over the bureaucratic aspects of government than any other in recent memory -- just look at what's happening in the State Department, the Pentagon, and the CIA. The one constant has been the apparent demand for "Good News" that corroborates and does not falsify the central administration's gospel. Is it any surprise they'd go after NASA as well?
Stop it, (Score:5, Insightful)
Balance the argument (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
BTW I demand you spend equal time to the FSM, invisible pink elephants and every other devine creature some idiot might have thought of.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
Only scientific theories and hypotheses need to be falsifiable. Nonscientific theories do not need to be falsifiable. Don't fall into the trap of equating scientific theory with nonscientific theory; they mean very different things.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:4, Insightful)
And by the way, the Big Bang has not been scientifically proven (hence "theory") and the existence of God has not been scientifically disproved.
Re:Balance the argument (Score:5, Insightful)
This statement is doubly flawed.
1) A scientific theory cannot be proven. It can only be disproven. It gains respect when repeated attempts to disprove it fail, but it's never 100% "true."
2) A religious belief cannot be disproven. It cannot be tested. Thus it's always 100% "true." (Or 0%)
Not all religious people are like this (Score:5, Insightful)
Sounds like theocracy gone awry. (Score:4, Insightful)
presidential appointee (Score:5, Informative)
more info on this guy here
http://www.nasawatch.com/archives/2006/02/george_
Re:presidential appointee (Score:5, Informative)
The parent is right, he's a hack. This kid's email is being blown way out of proportion here. A 24 year old with a degree in journalism would be laughed out of my office had he those comments to me, I don't care who appointed him. That's true of at least 99% of my coworkers.
His email was in regards to a web site for kids being made by a contractor that he must be the government monitor for. My guess that his management gave him that to do because as a new guy, it was something where if he screwed up it wouldn't cause too many problems. Like you do with the new guy anywhere else. Although by landing in the NY times they apparently failed in their objective - I'm certain there were a few heart attacks when this story rolled out.
It's not some systematic, sinister work by the administration - it's a kid who pulled some strings to get his first job, and you are witnessing him screwing up. Big time.
A Little Over Blown (Score:5, Insightful)
Throwing the word "theory" after big bang is technically the right treatment for the word. It is a theory. It is a pretty damn strong theory, but theory none the less.
As far as the PR office stuffing a reference to the presidential vision on space exploration in every single press release, while irritating, really isn't much of a crime in my opinion. Press releases are not scientific journals; they are the PR office at work. Part of the PR offices job is to drum up support for various initiatives. Claiming everything under the sun could help the study of other plants is probably technically correct. The NASA earth scientist are really just pissed that they got their work mentioned in the context that it could do something good for the presidential vision. NASA earth science and the rest of NASA have always had a problem with each other. I am not terribly surprised to see them feuding over the wording of press releases.
As far as earth sciences taking a hit and going under major restructuring, this shouldn't come as a surprise. The president pretty explicitly stated that NASA was to be realigned to focus on manned missions to space. Unsurprisingly, the means cuts in everything unrelated. Now, you might very well disagree with this, but it is certainly not secret sinister plot.
The only thing "scary" going on that the NYT article brought up is that they let some 24 year old idiot who clearly has no idea what he is doing into NASA's PR office. This "gem" shows pretty clearly that his head is deeply implanted up his ass.
The Big Bang is "not proven fact; it is opinion," Mr. Deutsch wrote, adding, "It is not NASA's place, nor should it be to make a declaration such as this about the existence of the universe that discounts intelligent design by a creator."
It continued: "This is more than a science issue, it is a religious issue. And I would hate to think that young people would only be getting one-half of this debate from NASA. That would mean we had failed to properly educate the very people who rely on us for factual information the most."
Now yes, the big bang theory IS a theory and should e called as such. That said, it isn't called a theory for religious reasons. Further, this fucking moron seems to be under the delusion that the big bang theory is something that religious folks don't like. Most Christians absolutely LOVE the big bang theory as it upset the long held scientific belief that the universe was forever and stats that the universe has a beginning.
Honestly, I think the news story here is that an idiot 24 year old kid got appointed into a job way over his head and acted like a moron.
Re:A Little Over Blown (Score:4, Informative)
This story's meaning just broke the sound barrier going over your head.
Did it ever occur to you that 24 year olds don't just get appointed to such jobs out of nowhere. He was posted for a reason. This is probably it.
Re:A Little Over Blown (Score:5, Funny)
Pass the popcorn!
Re:A Little Over Blown (Score:5, Funny)
Actually, that happened back in November 2000. There was followup surgery in 2004.
At present, prognosis for recovery isn't good.
I'm very happy (Score:5, Funny)
Cheers!
Och
(Sarcastic mood. Sorry)
Redundant language & A call for a resignation (Score:5, Insightful)
However being forced to add the word theory to every mention of the phrase "big bang" provides no real benefit in delivering clear and understandable explanations of scientific discoveries or ideas. Simply using the phrase "big bang" does not give anyone the false impression we are discussing an absolute fact, you would hope most people would be educated well enough to have at least some grasp of the underlying science and the way language is used and be able to avoid jumping to incorrect conclusions.
Instead you would have to suspect that anyone advocating this policy has an ulterior motive and in this case the muppet involved has been so kind as to outline his motive for us. Surprisingly from someone who would seem to be in a position where he was supposed to help scientists present their work clearly and coherently to the public he is instead more concerned with pushing his own private religious agenda than the job he is, presuambly, supposed to be doing.
I don't know the guy but already I don't like him. Whether I like him or not is irrelevant however, I think there is enough evidence here of him abusing his position for him to do the honourable thing and resign, or be fired.
See a trend here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Puts political fund raisers in charge of Corporation For Public Broadcasting because a politically independent organization just can't be trusted to be unbiased.
Puts Haliburton in charge of Iraq reconstruction. We're still there, the electricity still doesn't work very often.
Puts 24 year old campaign worker in charge of PR at NASA. ROFL! If it wasn't so creepy and pathetic it would be funny.
Ignorance and incompetence. The only question is how much more damage we'll take before 2008? As a Republican I'm joining with independents and Democrats to run all these fuckers out of office, then, hopefully, we can start engaging in meaningful discussions during the years we're going to spend cleaning up the mess that's going to be left behind.
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Insightful)
You see, Orwell's books were not fiction, but a thinly veiled image of the then-present state of Russia. The US is still far away from this, but don't worry, it's well on it's way...
Re:Honestly... (Score:4, Interesting)
The first stories appeared at the end of 2001 with 5 top microbiologists dying within approximately one month of each other, all were murdered or died suspiciously. By 3/2002 14 "world class" microbiologists had died in similar "muggings," murders or freak accidents.
By the beginning of 2005 the number had grown to over 40. It's not just people who worked in the field, these are prominent scientists, many with connections to biowarfare, the engineering of viruses, and the MIC.
Every year there are several watchdog type books and publications which list and rank the top censored or buried news stories of each year. This story has been among the top "censored" news stories almost every year since 2002.
If you doubt this information, check it out for yourself.
Re:Honestly... (Score:5, Insightful)
Go read The Washington Post and see if you can name which way it leans. If you read it for a few weeks you might find yourself rather confused on that question. I have heard just about everyone say it leans each possible direction. I have found the people who say it is right-leaning are often people who are on the left and do not like what the paper is telling them. The opposite is true for those who say it is left-leaning because they are right and do not agree with what the paper is telling them.
The problem is not the media being right or left and who listens to it, so much as it is people not agreeing with what they are hearing, so they attach labels to justify their own ignorance of the facts. Surely G.W. cannot be wrong if we say the sources are "leftist media", and surely G.W. cannot be right if we say the sources are "rightist media".
But of course, I hope you have an open enough mind to challenge your view on traditional media because right now you do not sound much better then the "right wing nuts" and "left wing loonies" to which you refer.
Re:Overkill (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that the current administration has taken a perfectly good word ("theory") and corrupted it to mean something entirely different. That's a political trick they are quite good at; consider how they have corrupted other perfectly good words to mean something bad, like "liberal" and "fiscal responsibility."
They have redefined "theory" to include things that are *not* scientific, like intelligent design, and the "theory" of the Liberal Global Warming Hoax Conspiracy. By selectively changing the definitions of words, they can couch the debate in a way more favorable to their political ends. In this case, it is a complete discrediting of science as a method of obtaining Truth, when in fact only the Bible has the ability to give us Truth.
Instead of the enlightened viewpoint you express, most of these people are not interested in using science to discover the face of God. Most of them realize if they do that, the world will not be 8,972 years old like they think; the rapture will most likely not happen in our lifetimes; and worse, the difference between good and evil is not so clear-cut as the difference between Us and Them. Oh, and maybe the US isn't God's Chosen Ones. Maybe the whole world is God's Chosen Ones.
And where will that leave them?
Re:Two sides to every issue (Score:5, Insightful)
This yahoo's attempt to insert "theory" after "Big Bang" in press releases is not out of want for scientific rigor; it is the point of a very disturbing wedge, one whose ultimate goal is a society in which everything is subservient to theology, even the physical sciences. We are sliding down the slippery slope, toward Sagan's Demon-Haunted Land.
Actually... (Score:5, Interesting)
The original poster seems to have it in his mind that there is a pre-existing space, in which at some point (0,0,0) at time 0 there was an explosion, and from which since then all the matter in the Universe has been receding. It's a common misconception. Certainly he is correct in his view that, if this is the case, then therefore the glow of the Big Bang, as seen by Penzias and Wilson and later by COBE and WMAP, ought to be racing out ahead of us all, a shell of light further out than the shell of matter, and quite invisible to us.
The mistake is in the initial assumptions. The Big Bang is not an explosion IN space, it is an explosion OF space.
Here's a gross oversimplification for purposes of visualisation: let us picture a toy Universe with only one space dimension and one time dimension, containing twelve galaxies. The space dimension curves around on itself, like the face of a clock. For someone living in this Clockland, the directions around the circle constitute Space, while the directions toward or away from the centre constitures Time. The twelve galaxies sit at the twelve hour points.
Now, let's expand this Universe. Enlarge the clock face. What happens? All twelve galaxies stay right where they are in space, right on the hour marks. They have not moved around the clock at all. But, because the face has become larger overall, the distance between them has increased.
An intelligent observer in this Universe would notice the other galaxies receding away from him, and if he were of Einstein-level intellect he might well deduce that this was down to an overall expansion of all of space. Should Clockland also contain a Hubble, they might then realise that by back-tracking the expansion, they could estimate a date at which all twelve galaxies were together at the centre, and at which all points in space were equivalent.
Now, we might ask, which point in Clockland was the location of the Big Bang? Where is the centre of expansion? Nowhere. Or everywhere. From our vantage point we can see that the centre of expansion is the centre of the clock face, that's easy - but that's not a point in Clockland's space. It is, however, a point in the past of every part of Clockland. In a sense, everywhere in Clockland can claim to have been the location of the Big Bang, because at that time, the whole of Clockland was the same place - right at the centre.
And had a flash of light been emitted at some point in Clockland's past, as the hot gas that filled the universe became transparent, it would not escape and run ahead of the galaxies. It would remain within the circle of the world, but would gradually become redshifted, as the expansion of space stretched out its wavelength.
This is something like what's happening with the Big Bang. The galaxies aren't moving significantly through space (though they do drift somewhat); space is expanding between them. No point in the Universe of space is the centre of expansion.
It's an absolute bugger to get your head around, I admit, but that's general relativity for you. I should also add that the Clockland analogy is also potentially misleading: we don't know if the Universe curves back on itself like this, and indeed we have good reason to think it does not. Things work out similarly with an infinite, open universe - but that's even harder to picture :)