The young partisan hack appointed to NASA, who took it upon himself to filter the science a little bit to suit right-wing biases? It seems he was a demonstrably bad boy.
I wonder what ever happened that unqualified creep? I know he resigned from NASA, I’m just wondering if he has now fallen upward to a Republican think-tank or something, the usual wingnut reward for incompetence.
One of the comments on this site said that the science in “An Inconvenient Truth” was so bad as to be funny. I saw a preview of Al Gore’s film and, while some of it was simplistic, I did not have a problem with the science, although a representative of the local science community (I’ve forgotten who he represented) afterward said that he did. Can anyone out there comment what, in light of the muzzling of James Hansen (while muzzle him if the science doesn’t back him up?), the problem is with the science in that film and with global warming being caused by human activity?
Kristine, you may want to check out the RealClimate review of the movie. Short version — the science is mostly good, with some relativiely minor issues.
PZ — did you see the article yesterday in the LA Times which talks about the problems that Daniel Danoto has had since publishing in Science regarding forest regeneration after fires? NSF funding pulled, collaborator with Forest Service punished, Dean of his school coming down on him (then being censored by the Faculty Senate)?
LA Times “A Student’s Forest Paper Sparks One Hot Debate”
Nice job by Lieberman. He has a long history of supporting science and technology.
What a pity the moonbat wing of the Democrat party is trying to stop him from being reelected.
What a pity Lieberman hasn’t figured out that he’s a moderate Republican. It sounds like you haven’t either.
Exactly. Lieberman would make an excellent Republican senator, one of the best in DC. He’s an awfully crappy Democrat, though, who is doing nothing but undermining progressive policy.
Bad Astronomy makes a very interesting tie-in with the Soviet Union and its policies. I think democrats should start accusing anti-science squads as being “Lysenkotic communists” out to destroy meaningful science.
It’s also interesting, because as we all know, hard-righters love to try scoring points in “debates” about how evolution plays into communist ideologies and other undemocratic institutions. Here we have a perfect example that communism itself pitted itself against real science.
Further proof that real science has never taken a particular side over another.
I’d have voted for Lieberman in 2004, notwithstanding his year 2000 flipflop on racial preferences. It appears, though, the Dems are irrevocably committed to progressive purity. Sane moderates like Lieberman need not apply.
Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right….
You’re right, Gerald. This country doesn’t need politicians causing trouble, concentrating on serious issues like civil liberties for all Americans or open, honest government or economic fairness. Best not make waves and stick to nonsense like gay marriage, the pledge of allegiance or overly violent video games. Might upset the GOP or fundamentalists, and we can’t have those people unhappy.
Ah, me…dead possums and yellow stripes.
Larry Summers, a strongly pro-science administrator, and not a conservative by any means, was just driven out of Harvard for saying things about the relative aptitude of the sexes that are the scientific consensus of the field. They just don’t happen to be ‘progressive’ orthodoxy. I’m old enough to remember the 1980’s and 1990’s, when we were being told that physicists had shunned fluid dynamics because of fear of menstruation; when the postmodernist left assured us that scientific knowledge was socially constructed, that scientific truth is one narrative among many, and should not be privileged, and when research on human genomic diversity was being politically suppressed because of fears it might lead to racist results.
It’s easy to throw around unintelligent slogans about dead armadillos and yellow stripes (though you should at least get it right!). But if you haven’t figured out that there are loonies on both sides who want to limit and co-opt science for their own agenda, you aren’t paying attention. And pro-science politicians, rare enough in both parties, need our support.
Larry Summers, a strongly pro-science administrator, and not a conservative by any means, was just driven out of Harvard for saying things about the relative aptitude of the sexes that are the scientific consensus of the field.
Sorry, but I think that’s more of a talking point than anything close to the truth.
He got a hell of a lot more flack from his faculty for being a poor administrator; I think it was just an easy thing to throw around unintelligent slogans about Sumers’ reign at Harvard than to look at a rather messy example of academic infighting.
Then again, I agree with you about Lieberman’s value to the the Democratic Party, so what do I know….
t’s easy to throw around unintelligent slogans about dead armadillos and yellow stripes (though you should at least get it right!). But if you haven’t figured out that there are loonies on both sides who want to limit and co-opt science for their own agenda, you aren’t paying attention. And pro-science politicians, rare enough in both parties, need our support.
I did get it right. I’m from Mississippi, and the armadillos have to wait in line behind the possums and raccoons. Granted, it isn’t as easy as throwing lame references to obscure ’70s pop songs that are only known by today’s hipsters because of a highly overrated movie, but that’s life.
And, of course there’s raging dingbats on both sides of the aisle who don’t know a Bunsen burner from a baseball bat yet nevertheless feel compelled to make up all sorts of goofy shit. That being said, Lieberman’s stances on a varied amount of other issues aren’t whisked by his stance on science. I’m not exactly sure why I should support someone who’s coming out against a particularly rotten political appointee and ignore his rancid stands on censorship, capital punishment, his near-total capitulation to the Bush Administration on everything from the Iraq boondoggle to the loonies Bush put on the Supreme Court, and his disgusting response to the question of hospitals supplying emergency contraceptives to rape victims. “They can drive to another hospital”, he said.
Frankly, the “lesser of two evils” argument is looking sadder and sadder with each passing election cycle. Though I’m not a native of Connecticut and, thus, have little say in the issue, I don’t see why I should support a senator who doesn’t really seem interested in supporting progressive values. Why in the hell should I, if the only difference between him and the most odious aspects of the modern GOP is he can recognize a stinker after the fact?
Purely as a matter of style, I think that should be “Lysenkoist” or “Lysenkoite”. To my electronics-geek ear, “Lysenkotic” sounds too much like a medical or biological term.
I’d have voted for Lieberman in 2004, notwithstanding his year 2000 flipflop on racial preferences. It appears, though, the Dems are irrevocably committed to progressive purity. Sane moderates like Lieberman need not apply.
Yes, Gerald, moderates like James H. Webb, former Secretary of the Navy appointed by President Reagan, and farmer turned moderate Montana Democrat candidate Jon Tester, need not apply…
Oh, er, wait a minute, I just checked, those “moonbats” you mention have been backing them all the way. Wow! Fancy that!
You really should not believe Republican talking points, you know. Those “moonbat” Democrats know what they are doing and represent a much larger swathe of the left than you realise. Take another look, (without help from Fox News) I think you’ll be surprised. Lieberman isn’t in jeapordy because he’s a moderate, or because the “moonbats” hate his moderate positions. He’s going to lose the primary because he no longer truly represents interests of the Democrats of his state.