Only the 'fittest' have 'survived'.
We’ll see if this is just politcial sleigh of hand.
On this topic:
Federal Judge Rules Fish Study that Forced Officials to Cut Off California Water was Based on Junk Science
A federal judge has ruled that a landmark 2008 environmental study laying the groundwork for controversial water cutbacks from the Sacramento-San Joaquin River Delta relied on faulty science.
In his much-anticipated decision released Tuesday, U.S. District Judge Oliver Wanger ordered the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to re-examine and rewrite its plan for the threatened delta smelt.
The agency’s solution for shoring up the collapsing species – namely cutting water exports to California cities and farms – is “arbitrary” and “capricious,” the Fresno judge wrote in his 225-page decision.
Article link: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/12/14/BAKO1GQMTH.DTL
supervisor and their public affairs office.” ....
Scientists can say anything they want as long as it is approved by government. What a joke!!! This is why we still have this global warming myth!!
Man, that has the ring of totalitarianism in it.
Tom Weller ("Science made Stupid: One of the best books ever written!) said it best (emphasis added):
Welcome to Chicago style ‘ghetto ethics’ being forced onto scientists.
Alston Chase’s Playing God In Yellowstone covered the issue of environmental science and politics. He dealt with political bafflegab such as this jewel: “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.””
Note the “with appropriate coordination with their immediate supervisor and their public affairs officer”.
Same old, same old - but with the “In their facees” attitude of the Ghetto Trash we sent to DC two years ago.
Her is the best summation of government reorganization yet written:
“I was to learn later in life that we tend to meet each new situation with reorganization, .....and a wonderful way it is to produce the illusion of progress while creating demoralization and inefficiency.”
It was written by a Roman named Petronius, who died in A.D. 66.
Same old, same old - indeed!
Doesn’t anyone ever ask why a scientist needs a “supervisor”?
RATS only tell the truth if it is politically expedient to do so. John Holdren is a GRAND GURU RAT, so anything this Marxist says has to be taken with a grain of salt. Assume there is a subversive aspect to any action taken by this Administration.
In other words, the present government is saying, “We’re going to give you ALL the scientific facts, EXCEPT what we don’t want you to know.” True scientists who work for the government must be tearing their hair out.
After the first line I looked for your name as poster... twice.
Anyone want to buy a bridge over the East River...cheap?
I like this statement from the above article: "The document is unlikely to stem widespread complaints that government scientists are under pressure not to speak to the media and wider public. It says the researchers may speak to the media and the public "with appropriate communication with their immediate supervisor" - wording that may provide scope for gagging within some branches of government."
No S#@$ Sherlock!
1) All science will promote the liberal agenda.
2) If science doesn't, see rule 1.
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.
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.