Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

geneftw · Feb 23, 2006

Well, well, well! It seems that we, from TEM aren't the only ones who think data is being suppressed: Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression In todays issue of Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature/journa...ll/439896a.html Colin Macilwain and Geoff Brumfiel, St Louis, Missouri Nobel laureate attacks government's suppression of research findings. ". . . Major US science agencies such as NASA, the National Science Foundation and the National Institutes of Health are all part of the executive branch of government, meaning that their employees answer ultimately to the president. In recent weeks, several researchers have gone public with charges that their government minders censored or otherwise manipulated their findings (see 'Censored Science?'). David Baltimore has called for opposition to the Bush administration's "suppression of science". The latest round began last month, when James Hansen, a climate scientist at NASA's Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, charged that NASA was trying to stop him doing media interviews that might cover policies on greenhouse-gas emissions. The 24-year-old NASA press officer who was the source of many of Hansen's complaints eventually resigned (see Nature 439, 643; 2006). The accusations have left many government-funded researchers wondering about their role in public debate over science policy. Are they allowed to speak their mind based on the latest science? Or must they hold their tongue and respect their employer's wishes? "There's no precise line that has been laid down," says Daniel Greenberg, a guest scholar at the Brookings Institution, a non-partisan think-tank based in Washington DC. Instead, scientists must navigate the grey zone where science meets public policy. . . Such tales are not unique to the Bush administration. In 1993,

bonzelite · Feb 23, 2006

i am no tree hugger, but science is suppressed overwhelmingly. but the left likes to only focus on the global warming issue and nothing else. this is what has made it to the popular media as of late to create a pro-socialist agenda. you will scarcely find any lead stories in the media about suppression of other sciences. but "greenhouse gas" is a hot ticket and a sure-thing to elicit all kinds of reactions. the government has suppressed science for decades, going far beyond president bush. at it's most extreme level of above BlackOps, the government suppresses science with or without the president's executive order.

telfrow · Feb 23, 2006

Your link doesn't work. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

TheShadow · Feb 23, 2006

i am no tree hugger, but science is suppressed overwhelmingly. Only if you think that science is believing that Roswell is an Alien crash site and landforms on Mars are “ancient architecture. Of course there are government projects that are kept secret, but that is not “suppressing science”. That is called ensuring national security, and none of it has anything to do with ET Aliens. Conspiracy theorists have fabricated a nice, safe refuge for themselves. These “conspiracies” are never brought to light, because there is an even bigger conspiracy to cover up the existence of all the other conspiracies. How convenient. At least the conspiracy theorists are good at one thing, keeping themselves entertained. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Who knows what evil lurks in the hearts of men, the Shadow knows. </div>

JonClarke · Feb 23, 2006

The fact that there is such an outcry over such a compartively small number of incidents shows that 1) it is unusual and 2) not very effective. Note too that the it was the press officer that was responsble for the complaints of supression was the one who lost his job, not the scientists doing the complaining. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

maxtheknife · Feb 23, 2006

Shadow Conspiracy theorists have fabricated a nice, safe refuge for themselves. Hmmm... seems the pathological skeptics have done the same for themselves... touche, &%$#@!cat! -Tom & Jerry <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> Thanks, but the only security I need is The Constitution and some elected officials with the guts to follow it. Edit... wow, sorry... I didn't intend for that to be recognized as a vulgar term. Oh, well, u get the point.

JonClarke · Feb 23, 2006

Yes, I have heard of quite a few of those. So the suppression isn't very working. In the commerical world suppression should not be confused with confidentiality with regard to developing an innovation that gives a corporate advantage. What's this got to do with space science and astronomy? Nothing. So it should go elsewhere. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

bonzelite · Feb 23, 2006

Yes, general informational & technological suppression has been going on for decades and is getting worse, as it threatens the powerful corporate status quo--their investments, plants, and patents. i agree with steve 300%. he is absolutely correct. shadow, your presumptuousness and knee-jerk reaction to "ET" coverups is far from the only thing being covered up. the world is a lot bigger than "ET coverups." and if you believe that science is not suppressed on a grand scale, then you may wish to re-examine your entire internal belief paradigm. your comment is either reactionary, naive', or you are diverting attention away from scientific suppression.

ag30476 · Feb 23, 2006

I wonder how Microsoft beat out IBM or the oil cartels beat out the coal companies or how electric light beat out gas? I tell you, if I had been a horse trader or barge builder in 1800, I would have physically beaten anyone with silly notions of a steam or internal combustion engine or such nonsense before they could even begin to take part of my business.

Saiph · Feb 23, 2006

actually, those technologies will be held back until the people with the pipelines are in place to use it. Afterall, why do you think energy companies are working on technologies that mesh with fuel efficient cars (better batteries etc). So they can be there at the start. In general, however, such technological coverups don't work well. It either leaks, or get's developed by someone else as well. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> --------------------SaiphMOD@gmail.com -------------------"This is my Timey Wimey Detector. Goes "bing" when there's stuff. It also fries eggs at 30 paces, wether you want it to or not actually. I've learned to stay away from hens: It's not pretty when they blow" -- The Tenth Doctor, "Blink" </div>

bonzelite · Feb 23, 2006

^^^but is covered up nonetheless. it is rampant and commonplace.

jatslo · Feb 23, 2006

Saiph said, "... people with the pipelines are in place to use it ..." *infrastructure*, you mean? Maybe that is why the cost of *OIL* is running rampant; stimulating the economy, or making alternative technologies that much more hospitable to the entrepreneur. This event is highly favorable to independents, in general, as opposed to industry recessions, or when independents fold, and larger organizations merge to survive the times. It is no coincidence that politicians around the world have advised *Petroleum* organizations to reinvest inflated profits. *Economics* is science; <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> and sample space in hypothesis, is simply space, and/or space-time. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> *Political Ploy*, whereas politics are often dishonest, involve things like investment, and popular choices are Infrastructure, Education, and Tax Cuts. These events often coincide at around a time when critical political maneuvers take place. *infrastruction*, *Re-educating* <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> How about Supply and Demand?

qso1 · Feb 24, 2006

They should be angry, this supression is what leads some to conclude the coverups extend to ETs ect. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

geneftw · Feb 24, 2006

Jon asked "What's this got to do with space?..." This thread was started with a reference to NASA, but it got a little sidetracked into other areas of science and technology. I'm glad it did. The various posts illustrate that cover-ups are very commonplace, even with our tax-paid NASA. (I guess the difference between a cover-up and confidentiality is that we can easily understand and can condone the reasons behind confidentiality, whereas with a cover-up, we don't know the reasons and/or we don't condone them. Legality plays into it, too. ) We from TEM have pointed out on numerous occasions that NASA is withholding, and even altering (smudging images) data, and the great open minds here balked at the very idea of NASA withholding data. (er... that is data about space, or should I say "space science"? We,ve also said that NASA was withholding data about Iapetus, which falls under the heading of Astronomy. So if this thread is about NASA withholding data concerning space science and astronomy, where should it go? When we know of one cover-up, should we conclude that to be the only cover-up, or should we expect it to be possible, if not likely that there are more cover-ups? By the way: I can't read French. Don't understand a word of it. Uhm... I know "Ad hominem". That's Latin, ain't it.

qso1 · Feb 24, 2006

geneftw: "NASA was withholding data about Iapetus" My response: This and what is being discussed here sounds more like the Bush Administration trying to make scientists and scientific orgs follow an ideological agenda rather than a cover up. After all, wouldn't it be easier just to say the images of Iapetus could not be gotten due to spacecraft failure. NASA wouldn't even have to say there was to be a flyby of Iapetus. That would be a coverup. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

geneftw · Feb 24, 2006

"After all, wouldn't it be easier just to say the images of Iapetus could not be gotten due to spacecraft failure. NASA wouldn't even have to say there was to be a flyby of Iapetus. That would be a coverup." Nope. 'cuz what about subsequent data that they wouldn't wanna cover?

qso1 · Feb 24, 2006

Good point. However, what exactly is it in the Iapetus data that you think they are trying to coverup? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> My borrowed quote for the time being:There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened. </div>

telfrow · Feb 24, 2006

gene: As a FYI, the Hansen situation and censorship in general, was discussed previously in Environment, as well as Free Space. There was also another thread in Free Space - here - that dealt with science and censorship. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Made weak by time and fate, but strong in will to strive, to seek, to find and not to yeild. - Tennyson </div>

maxtheknife · Feb 24, 2006

Hear back about that missing radar data yet, Telfrow??? Maybe you want to fill qso in....

chriscdc · Feb 24, 2006

Wow, I actually agree with some of what you said. Most of this isn't direct supression, just limiting funds for research. If these things were ready for mass production then even the monopolies would see a financial reason to change. The bubble quantum computer is still only an idea and they are still researching the fundamentals. De beers has been the most transparent cartel in history but thier marketing has been superb. All the women that I asked, 'would you prefer a diamond produced artificially or a natural diamond', they always go for the natural one and get quite aggressive when I point out that they are identical. Pointing out that a pebble has had a more interesting geological history doesn't improve their mood either. I recently listened to a BBC world program about the diamond trade and at no point did they say that the CVD or metal dissolved diamonds were chemically or structually the same. The De beers scientists seemed to have practiced every sentence, like a politician, to subtly give the impression that they were a world apart. Like many coatings, carbon nitride is hard to apply. You also have to be aware that the coating may simply not 'stick' to the underlying substrate due to different lattice mis-matches. Also when can you apply such coatings? Many parts will break before mechanical wearing takes down many parts. You don't want to pay for the carbon nitride coating for something that you only expect to use for less thn a decade. The economics aren't as simple as coat anything that you can. On the fibre optics, haven't many of the companies still feeling the pain for laying down cables years ago that still aren't being used? Anyway for 50K channels, you need 50K recordings/cameras. I haven't read the book so it may have covered all these points.

JonClarke · Feb 24, 2006

Again what you are saying is factually wrong or irrelevant. You have not provided any evidence for systematic suppression of innovation or information. None of this has any relevance to space science or technology. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Feb 24, 2006

"if you believe that science is not suppressed on a grand scale" Evidence please. This is a science board. Assertion is not enough. Added it edit from another post "but is covered up nonetheless. it is rampant and commonplace." Evidence? "your comment is either reactionary, naive', or you are diverting attention away from scientific suppression. " Are you accusingf Shadow of suppressing science? Evidence please. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

maxtheknife · Feb 24, 2006

Jon: Assertion is not enough. Unless of course you're a pathological skeptic. Jon Are you accusingf Shadow of suppressing science? Evidence please. There's plenty of evidence. But I wouldn't pin it all on just one guy. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" />

JonClarke · Feb 24, 2006

"Actually, one recalls that Tesla, the inventor of the world's electric power systems, generators, power lines and motors, made no headway in Europe because they were quite comfy with steam and DC power. The anti-technology, suppression going on there was pretty extreme. " Evidence? "marcone left for mostly the same reasons. The Euros did not have any really wide spread, large scale assembly line factories until after the US, which continued to technologicaly progress, overwhelmed the Euro factory production by the 1920's. Then they were forced to change by markets. " Rubbish. The rise to preeminence (although never overwhelming) of the US in manufacturing after the 1920's was not due to your fictious European backwardness but to two factors, the crippling war debts of European countries and the advantages of an integrated continental scale economy. But none of this belongs here, it belongs in Free space. It has nothing to to with space science and technology. I request the moderators it be moved. Jon <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

JonClarke · Feb 24, 2006

"Jon asked "What's this got to do with space?..." This thread was started with a reference to NASA, but it got a little sidetracked into other areas of science and technology." Only very slightly. One failed attempt at influencing what someone in NASA said on a non-space science and technology area. which led to the perpretator being sacked. "I'm glad it did." I am sure you are. Since you "from the TEM" (as you chose to call yourselves) don't have the slightest bit of real evidence for your views, the only way you think you can make headway is by trying to create a general distrust of science by creating of a general and widespread supression of data. That way "those from TEM" can protray the entire scientific process as discredited and those who who defend it as naive, ignorant, dupes, or actual people suppressing data or deflecting attention away from the truth. We have seen it here in this thread. "The various posts illustrate that cover-ups are very commonplace, even with our tax-paid NASA." Since not one bit of evidence has been tendered they don't. "We from TEM have pointed out on numerous occasions that NASA is withholding, and even altering (smudging images) data, and the great open minds here balked at the very idea of NASA withholding data. (er... that is data about space, or should I say "space science"? We,ve also said that NASA was withholding data about Iapetus, which falls under the heading of Astronomy. So if this thread is about NASA withholding data concerning space science and astronomy, where should it go?" You have produced so such evidence what so ever. the only people TEM convinces are the ignorant or the conspiratorial. As the threads here have shown. You are deliberately mistrepresenting the story. A NASA official (not the managers, not the norgalisation as whole) was accused of trying to influence statements on climate change. This is not space science and <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> Whether we become a multi-planet species with unlimited horizons, or are forever confined to Earth will be decided in the twenty-first century amid the vast plains, rugged canyons and lofty mountains of Mars Arthur Clarke </div>

Scientists Angry at NASA et al over data suppression

geneftw

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

telfrow

Guest

TheShadow

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

ag30476

Guest

Saiph

Guest

bonzelite

Guest

jatslo

Guest

qso1

Guest

geneftw

Guest

qso1

Guest

geneftw

Guest

qso1

Guest

telfrow

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

chriscdc

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

maxtheknife

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

JonClarke

Guest

Similar threads

TRENDING THREADS

Latest posts

Moderators online

Share this page