I think one of the most puzzling things (that I haven’t seen anyone mention but might have been) is how this guy was even appointed in the first place. As a Junior in college myself I cannot imagine the President of the United States ACTUALLY WANTING TO APPOINT ME TO A NATIONAL POLITICAL POSITION! Does this not outrage everyone as much as the fact that he was incompetent? He was also dangerously unqualified. This seems to be a pattern of this president; to appoint the most unqualified cronies he can find in his address book. This kid should have declined the position in the first place, but maybe that is asking too much maybe he should have just relied on the expeirence of those around him. The point is he did neither. At what’s more hilarious is that he got caught lying.

I think this battle between Religion and Science can only get worse for those in the scienetific fields. We have to realize that Religion has a clear advantage in any argument between the two:

Any argument they make reqires no evidence or logic to support it.

PERIOD

We can’t win this fight. We require evidence, logic, or reality to influence our judgement. This is a sad state of affairs and I know it is hard to accept. Our only option is to follow in the footsteps of all scientists past and go underground. Not immediately of course but we should be prepared to resort to this. Religion is ever growing in this country and religious people have religious children. They outnumber us and probably always will.

I do fear the day when we will be called “heratic” for speaking the truth.

Löök, I have Umlaug-signs on my computer!

Auf Deutsch is supposed to mean “in German”, which is also a language (hence, I guess, “noch einmal” above). Whether a blog post is called a Post in German too, I do not know.

I don’t mind if you call me Dumbass. I usually have a lot of self irony.

Btw, you forgot the verb at the end of the sentence. I can put it in here for you (sometimes, you know, in German, you find the verb on the next page): haben.

As for beskeptigal’s remarks, I think she was addressing your response to me. You seemed to imply that he left because of the criticism, not because NASA found out he was lying and could fire him for it. She is agreeing with me that lying on your resume can and often will get you fired. You apparently agree, just feel that in this case there were other, more important factors.

I’m not sure I understand you either…

I am not certain I understand how anyone can say they are a graduate when they are not. Surely this is a big deal.

When I was hired as a aide to a City Councilman, it was because I worked very hard on his campaign and he knew I was still a Senior in College.

That’s funny, Mike. A little crude, but funny.

Hawk, you seem to doubt the scientific evidence that the global temperature is rising and/or CO2 emissions are related, per your comment, “I think that in 20 years, when the planet starts cooling again, these arguments may look pretty foolish.” Yet the majority of scientists who have looked at the data are of the opinion the climate is indeed warming in response to atmospheric CO2 levels.

Yet you think Hansen, presenting research and conclusions he believes in, supported by the fact that the majority of the relative scientific community also believes to be correct, is political? Why? Because you don’t like the results?

I fear it is you who are allowing your political position to cloud the glasses you peer through.

When someone pointed out that most scientists believed in evolution, one of these fine gentlefolk replied “Well, the scientists are wrong!”.

Apologies to certain late comics, but it seems to me that somehow many people in this wonderful republic have got their rules of evidence misconscrued. But charisma and my say-so are the stocks-in-trade for both religion and politics.

Some seem to think that because “science” often has to backtrack, change course, admit paradigmatic wrongheadedness, etc., that it is inherently inferior to true old-school, rote, nudge-nudge/wink-wink, and repeat-after-me forms of knowledge transmission. My way or the highway.

So which do you support- plastic Ono “truth” 3.0, or TRUTH CARVED IN STONE? Perhaps there is something to do with personal feelings of security here, and taking personal responsibility for your world view (and not simply the promulgation of someone else’s). But both (more?) sides sin here.

Long ago I began to believe that nobody should have a unit vote, simply by dint of citizenship, on any particular issue, but only a graded one (between 0 and 1) depending on ones actual understanding of the issues at stake, to be decided by examination. Obviously nobody knows everything, and one would be required by law (to retain citizenship rights) to vote on a certain number of issues per year. Too simplistic to be sure, but weighted in favor of the brain, and not the gut. Higher levels of income/clout or being too close to the issue should count against your vote.

This is my “I.D.”- Intelligent Democracy

The science is collecting the data and interpreting it, and generating patterns that answers some questions and poses a few more. Saying “He has a model. He has his opinions and they have a lot of science behind them, but they aren’t “Hard Data.” ” completely misses the point; that IS doing science, like it or not.

Is it good science? Well, the only way to know is to publicize it, examine the data, the model and predictions.

It wouldn’t be one to three probably a great many.
And I wouldn’t be too terribly quick to dismiss not feeling the heat,
bad PR is something that no one can stand for long, especially if it is warranted as it was here.

It should be:

Schade, dass Sie nicht den ganzen Post uber Deutsch geschrieben

there should also be umlauts above my U in uber. And before you come back with “but uber means above” it can also mean “about”

Man I have no life

Dumbass

DEUTSCH BAGGED

The kid was the proverbial snotty nosed 24 year old…except he wasn’t even a graduate.

Arrogant and proud…too terribly proud so much so that he thought he might get away with anything…

And didn’t. Just the opposite because government service is really all about helping people not helping yourself.

No matter what you do, such considerations are always just beneath the surface. We are now and have always been overly concerned with our positions in society, and our place in existance. As evolved beings we’re just very good now at hiding this in boxes within boxes. Some are better at it than others. Agendas are nothing new- perhaps someone, someday, will “intelligently design” these urges out of us. Hail Dorothy!

Look, I am not trying to argue against Dr. Hansen. But he doesn’t have “Hard Data.” He has a model. He has his opinions and they have a lot of science behind them, but they aren’t “Hard Data.” NASA recognizes some of these presentations are political and wants to stay out of them.

I think that in 20 years, when the planet starts cooling again, these arguments may look pretty foolish. NASA should stick to gathering data, performing science, and keep its hands clean from religious or political discussions.

May I link to your marvellous blog? Chanced upon it via 01′s. Serendipity!

- Audrey

There is nothing political about that.

The politics comes into it when you come up against the fact that people do not want to give up their cars, or air-conditioning, or having brightly-lit streets, or being able to travel by airliner and so on. Add to that the fact that the industries that supply us with the various forms of energy we consume have a very powerful lobby, and you start to get equivocation and excessive compromise.

The scientist, James E. Hansen, longtime director of the agency’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, said in an interview that officials at NASA headquarters had ordered the public affairs staff to review his coming lectures, papers, postings on the Goddard Web site and requests for interviews from journalists.

Dr. Hansen said he would ignore the restrictions. “They feel their job is to be this censor of information going out to the public,” he said.”

Ok, I just want to confirm that he is using NASA to soapbox for prompt reduction in emission of greenhouse gasses. That is a political statement. I work with natural environment folks on a daily basis, I understand the difference between the science and the politics. I am sure Dr. Hansen does as well.

The real job of a PAo is as you describe, but that is provably not what Deutsch was doing.

Jim does great work. He has been published a nearly dozen times in the last couple years and he speaks at more than an event a month. Everybody KNOWS he is controversial and hard spoken. George had no ZIP nada ZERO effect on Jim’s publication/speaking rate. Dr. Hansen was just reviewed, like every other speaker. He should not be putting out political statements that can be interpreted as “NASA says.”

I understand his desire to push politics in the US, and affect the consensus toward adoption of the Kyoto treaty. And for himself he should continue working that way. But this ruckus was a career ender for George (of course, if he starts by lying on his resume I guess he wouldn’t have been much of a journalist in any case), and very likely only serves to give Jim a platform for a day. On this platform he will probably attack the president’s policies, which will do nobody at NASA any good when budgets are up for the vote again. Of course, Jim isn’t at NASA, so he won’t have to worry about it.