Beam me to Planet Gore !
Posted on 12/18/2010 7:29:36 AM PST by Cincinatus' Wife
1) All science will promote the liberal agenda.
2) If science doesn't, see rule 1.
December 13, 2010: NASA Names Waleed Abdalati As Agency's New Chief Scientist" WASHINGTON -- NASA Administrator Charles Bolden has named Waleed Abdalati the agency's chief scientist, effective Jan. 3. Abdalati will serve as the principal adviser to the NASA administrator on agency science programs, strategic planning and the evaluation of related investments.
Abdalati is currently the director of the Earth Science and Observation Center at the University of Colorado at Boulder. He also is an associate professor in the university's geography department. Between 1998 and 2008, Abdalati held various positions at NASA in the areas of scientific research, program management and scientific management. His research has focused on the study of polar ice cover using satellite and airborne instruments. He has led or participated in nine field and airborne campaigns in the Arctic and the Antarctic.
Abdalati will represent all of the scientific endeavors in the agency, ensuring they are aligned with and fulfill the administration's science objectives. He will advocate for NASA science in the context of those broader government science agendas and work closely with the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy and the Office of Management and Budget......"
That’s pretty straight forward!
LOL
:(
The document states, “Federal scientists may speak to the media and the public about scientific and technological matters based on their official work,” but then adds a caveat: “with appropriate coordination with their immediate supervisor and their public affairs office.” ....
This has actually always been the case. I'm a government scientist. I either get funding to do my own research, or I join another scientist on her project. Essentially, I play around in the lab, doing experiments, and at some point, I want to go to meetings and talk about my work, or I want to publish my findings. But before I can do that, I have to have my work cleared. The clearance has nothing to do with my findings or conclusions: they just want to make sure I don't give out the wrong kind of information. For instance, I had included the lethal dose (LD50) on a certain poison, and I had to remove that information. Other than that--the last item I submitted for clearance was cleared within a day, and I didn't have to change anything.
No kidding.....
.....They manipulate what studies are done, what conclusions are made, what gets funding and what does not, which reports are written.....
.....And then say the “Federal scientists may speak to the media and the public about scientific and technological matters based on their official work,” but then adds a caveat: “with appropriate coordination with their immediate supervisor and their public affairs office.”
Talk about manipulated science under the guise of scientific freedom from manipulation...
The Magnusion-Stevens Fishery Management Act regulates our nations fisheries in federal waters. It was amended in 1996 to incorporate the precautionary principal and the only other standard required is the use of the “best available science” which has come to mean that ANYTHING GOES.
This has resulted in the enviro’s having a field day in severly restricting access or in some cases shutting down fisheries altogather.
They were in the process of closing the ocean to ALL bottom fishing (73 species) for 35 years in the southeast (NC to Key West) using data from 1945 saying that red snapper were almost extinct. Fact is that there has been a RS rebuilding plan in place since 1994 and there is a historical abundance of red snapper. Fact's do not matter to them.
This makes me feel good. Are these the same guidelines that premised the unbiased scientific "report" full of 'facts' sanctioning the Gulf Oil Drilling Moratorium?
In my opinion these guidelines are but another layer of lipstick on a pig...
This is so oxymoronic. If science is to be left alone then government should not sign special laws making it a cultic realm of special protection.
The question then will be who is a real scientist and who is not? Ah, if that were the case then Affirmative Action is dead.
All your science are belong to us.
If he was real for science, he would not be President.
These guidelines are called the Declaration of Independence.
This is a legislation meant to persecute real scientists and questioners of the one and his policies.
Ah, so this is a muslim plan, perhaps, just as they stole mathematics from the Hindus because Mohammed could not have his damned cult of Islam from hell manage to produce anything.
Welcome to Islamo fascist third reich Penemunde slave system.
Indeed,
They cannot hunt the science but the men of science will be their hunted preys and slaves? Hmm and what if it turns the real scientists into hunters and destroyers of them? Ah, no, cannot do that, right?
So basically they are out to destroy scientists.
**It was written by a Roman named Petronius, who died in A.D. 66. Same old, same old - indeed!***
SATYRICON by Gaius Petronius?
None other. He was, as well as the putative author of Satyricon, quite a competent administrator, having held a position of considerable authority in the roman Empire.
My pleasure.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.