Now to really **** you off

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to anything
other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based conclusions, from a
host of advisory committees. NO administration has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is,
the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration has
ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many times
in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of varying
agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the most famous
example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for me
the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top of my
head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Flyfish adds:

Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many times
in my lifetime

I am talking about the practice of American Presidents with relation to
standing Scientific Advisory committees. It is a relatively recent practice(the
committees), not becoming a key part of governance until the 60's or so. Still,
the principle is basic, gather scientists to debate the scientific merits of
ongoing policies related to their field of expertise. The pols can take or
leave the advice, nothing is or should be binding. Still, the practice of
replacing accredited scientists with businessmen and still more politicians
would seem to defeat the knowledge-gathering aspect of having the committees in
the first place.
Not surprising when the leader of the Free World chooses not to read
newspapers.
Still, alarming and dangerous practice.
Tom

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Flyfish adds:

Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime

I am talking about the practice of American Presidents with relation
to standing Scientific Advisory committees. It is a relatively recent
practice(the committees), not becoming a key part of governance until
the 60's or so. Still, the principle is basic, gather scientists to
debate the scientific merits of ongoing policies related to their
field of expertise. The pols can take or leave the advice, nothing is
or should be binding. Still, the practice of replacing accredited
scientists with businessmen and still more politicians would seem to
defeat the knowledge-gathering aspect of having the committees in the
first place. Not surprising when the leader of the Free World chooses
not to read newspapers.
Still, alarming and dangerous practice.
Tom


Tom this make come as a huge surprise to you but I knew exactly what you
were talking about and while you may think this is a unique event, it is
not, and the same complaints have been levelled before against various
Presidential administrations. One could easily find such complaints made
against Reagan, and if you were to dig deep enough you'd find at least
one, dare I say it, scientist arguing that *gasp* Clinton was ignoring
valid science related to certain trendy theories related to climate (Fred
Singer).....

There is nothing new in rock and roll, or politics....

Flyfish

Flyfish states:
One could easily find such complaints made
against Reagan, and if you were to dig deep enough you'd find at least
one, dare I say it, scientist arguing that *gasp* Clinton was ignoring
valid science related to certain trendy theories related to climate

and, I will repeat, there were no claims to my knowledge that either of those
two presidents expunged scientists from panels en masse. Merely, that they
ignored the advice(which, I thought I clearly stated at the outset, was the
right of the political folks to do). My problem is with not performing the
scientific analysis at all.
Tom

Flyfish wrote in
:

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth is,
the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration
has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of
varying agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the
most famous example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for me
the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top of my
head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that are
willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an example, but
Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott

Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Flyfish wrote in
:

(Tom Littleton) wrote in
:

Allen,
I would have expected better than a Fox News blurb....the truth
is, the Bush
admin has systematically eliminated scientists, with no regard to
anything other than the likelyhood of negative, scientifically based
conclusions, from a host of advisory committees. NO administration
has ever done so before, NONE!!
Tom


Hmm while I'm certain that these events may seem this way to you, the
claim that science is hostage to political power has been made many
times in my lifetime, and before, by differing people in service of
varying agendas. A certain astronomer from the middle ages may be the
most famous example of this sort of thing.

That Bush is a political whore goes without saying. Please list for
me the politicans who do not fall within that category? Off the top
of my head I cannot, for the life of me, think of a single one.

Flyfish

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that
are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan, less
popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments that
are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan, less
popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither over the
latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments
that are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan,
less popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither over
the latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

What exactly about my statement escapes you? Other than the obvious, all
of it. *insert rolling eyes here*

It is a fact that Reagan spent plenty on physics in order to achieve star
wars, while he made no bones about cutting research into alternative
fuels and other environmentally friendly sciences. The fact is that
Reagan dismantled Carter's proposed alternative fuels program as fast as
he could.

Are you so blinded by your dislike of me that you cannot even see that
simple fact? Imbecile indeed.

Flyfish

"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative governments
that are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan can be used as an
example, but Bush isn't doing very good things for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under Reagan,
less popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither over
the latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

What exactly about my statement escapes you? Other than the obvious, all
of it.

Well, aside from a rationale for that hoary old spurious distinction between
so-called "hard" sciences and others, there's also the cryptic distinction
between "hard" and "less popular".

*insert rolling eyes here*

Careful they don't get stepped on.

It is a fact that Reagan spent plenty on physics in order to achieve star
wars,

Yep, that is a fact.

while he made no bones about cutting research into alternative
fuels and other environmentally friendly sciences.

Also true.

The fact is that
Reagan dismantled Carter's proposed alternative fuels program as fast as
he could.

Well, not privy to the details of national politics, I guess I don't know
whether or not he did that as fast as he possibly could. However, I'll take
your word for it.

Anyway, I think I see my error. I wasn't aware that "popular" means
something that did well under Reagan. Silly me, I had supposed the
adjective described something that enjoyed widespread support......or
something like that. I WILL say, in my own defense, that the Latin root
from which "popular" is derived seemed to support my illusion.

Are you so blinded by your dislike of me that you cannot even see that
simple fact?

Dislike? Hm......do you know something I don't? Is there some reason I
should dislike you? Um.......we haven't actually met or anything, have we?
Was I drinking heavily?

As to facts, I agreed to every one that you posted and that I recognized in
this round. You will have noted my willingness to take your word on the
one. If that was the one you were referring to, then I'd say, no, not
blind.......just not in the loop. However, as blindness appears to be the
crucial test, then obviously I could, if guilty, have missed another. So, I
guess you'll have to answer for me. Did I identify the right fact.......or
was there another that I didn't see?

Imbecile indeed.

Indeed indeed.

Wolfgang