The American Spectator

Robbins Mitchell| 4.20.09 @ 7:03AM

There is no truth to the rumor that Waxman worked his way through college by pimping out his nose and contracted sniffilis as a result.

Melvin| 4.20.09 @ 7:15AM

I was just thinking the other day, that some of the most dangerous and destructive politicians hail from California. Waxman, Fienstein, Boxer.

stu.b.con| 4.20.09 @ 8:06AM

I have an idea! Instead of Texas seceding from the union, why not have Callyfornia exit the union. Then Pelosi, Waxman, Boxer, Newsom, et.al. can set up their socialist paradise and we can watch Callyfornia fall into the ocean either metaphorically or seismically(?)!

Lu | 4.20.09 @ 8:07AM

California should slide into the Ocean, the country would be better off. The Dems. will destroy the counntry and kill more people with either their health care or climate change plans.

Robert Rosencrans| 4.20.09 @ 8:23AM

If any version of cap and trade passes, it will be like throwing a lead weight to a drowning economy.

owyheewine| 4.20.09 @ 9:08AM

I'm not sure which scientists Waxman is listening too, but given his district, I suspect that most of them particicated in Timothy Leary's LSD experiments.

Gazinya| 4.20.09 @ 9:24AM

If I could I would like to remind people that not ALL of California is wacked. If we want to change the liberalism that originates from that state we need just a little tzunami that hits the coastline. Say from San Diego or L.A. to Sausalito and in about 30 miles. That should do it.

Look at the voting by precincts. There is that polyglut of liberals along the coast. L.A. , Santa Barbara, San Luis, San Jose, San Fransisco, Sacramento. The rest of the state is much more conservative.

The problem with what is going on in California is that the liberals have protected just this small sliver of land and made Californa pay for their socialist ideas. Remember the shock when homosexual marriage was shut down. In California!

Large worker unions are like that. People get into a position of authority and then change the rules to maintain their authority. Then make the rest of the union pay so the 'leaders' can live large. Notice how few if any Repubs campaign there or how few dems even present their ideas. Except to slide in and bash the seething unwashed masses.

California is just as burdened with this corrupt liberal system as the rest of the country. I think it is time to make another State. The Free State of California. Everywhere but that small sliver of plague that has infested the shoreline.

Anthony| 4.20.09 @ 9:27AM

Is it just my imagination, or does Henry Waxman look more and more like Napoleon from "Animal Farm" each and every day?

David| 4.20.09 @ 9:32AM

Gazinya, you are so right. I live in Ca and in one of the more conservative areas. To go to the bay area from here is like going to a whole different sick world, one I choose to stay away from...

David Adams| 4.20.09 @ 9:52AM

The White House is worried about appearance - not about the effects of Cap and Trade. The issue is hidden - not dead.

erp| 4.20.09 @ 10:29AM

"He [Emanuel] won't allow ...". His ego is in reverse proportion to his stature.

Marc Jeric| 4.20.09 @ 11:23AM

For this former escapee from a communist country this is a real, living nightmare. Pelosi, Waxman,Markey, Frank, Dodd, Lee, Baxter, Feinstein, Chu, Napolitano, Obama, what's his name AG (Holder, yes), Emanuel, ACORN, Shumer, Reid - I mean, is this a horror movie or what?

Peter| 4.20.09 @ 11:51AM

San Luis Obispo County, on the Coast between SF and LA is a Republican County. The only one on the coast of California.

Stan Redmond| 4.20.09 @ 12:07PM

NOTHING is stopping California from imposing a tax and trade, I mean cap and trade, scheme. But Waxman Obama et al KNOW businesses will vote with their feet and move to states without the expenses. Waxman MUST impose this extremely profitable (for government) boondoggle nationwide, if not worldwide, to prevent businesses moving out of state. If cap and trade becomes law there will be a loss of jobs never before seen in this nation.

And has anyone noticed the shift from calling "carbon dioxide" emmisions to "carbon" emmisions? Very sneaky. Everyone knows we all exhale carbon dioxide and we couldn't live without it. But carbon... Everyone knows carbon is dirty like the stuff that coats your pots and pans. Who could be against dirty carbon from being emmited?

gregorbo| 4.20.09 @ 3:15PM

Don't forget: The EPA has just announced a rule change that defines carbon dioxide an environmental pollutant that causes real harm. So, Obama doesn't need Waxman's bill--he's going to get "cap-and-trade" from a non-elected regulartory body imposed by new rules that will require retro-fitting of our energy sectors--esp. coal and oil whose cost will be passed directly to consumers.

Angel| 4.20.09 @ 3:36PM

There are millions of Conservatives in California who are sick of people on the right lumping us in with the crazy liberals. Are your states bastions of Conservatism--did Ronald Reagan hail from your state? The Democrat party worked to turn California into a liberal state a long time ago--Colorado is just about there now, and Texas is next. None of you is immune from the tactics of ACORN--think--before you ridicule.

MT| 4.20.09 @ 3:47PM

Orange County, San Bernardino County, Riverside County--all California Conservative counties with millions of great people living here. There are so many decent, Conservative Americans I know and care about; they are my neighbors--we don't deserve your disrespect.

harry| 4.20.09 @ 4:25PM

I'm from Ca and believe me there are lots of conservatives in this state. It's gotten to the point where you can't even talk to a lib about politics. They think BO is doing a great job and don't want to discuss his socialistic plans for America. Hopefully they'll wake up and take a good look at what's happening. But I doubt it.

cdc| 4.20.09 @ 5:15PM

if your going to criticize greenhouse effects you have to get the science right. Saying CO2 is harmless because humans exhale it is stupid, humans excrete all kinds of metabolic poisons which in suffcient quantity are harmful. Even oxygen, the element we inhale, is highly toxic when provided at a sufficiently high partial pressure. So try to adhere to specific data regarding correlations between atmospheric carbon and climate, otherwise you come across as scientifically illiterate.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 7:12PM

“if your going to criticize greenhouse effects you have to get the science right. Saying CO2 is harmless because humans exhale it is stupid, humans excrete all kinds of metabolic poisons which in suffcient quantity are harmful. Even oxygen, the element we
inhale, is highly toxic when provided at a sufficiently high partial pressure. So try to adhere to specific data regarding correlations between atmospheric carbon and climate, otherwise you come across as scientifically illiterate.” [cdc| 4.20.09 @ 5:15PM]

Hi cdc:

Your entire comment is pure horse manure.

You sound to me more like little a poseur attempting to sound sophisticated with “get the science right” and “otherwise you come across as scientifically illiterate” and your ridiculous statements about CO2 and oxygen.

That or a liar, who is merely attempting to confuse, confound and silence others.

One can toss about terms and jargon all that he likes, whether he understands them or not.

Your comment is nothing but a mess of confusion and utterly irrelevant to this issue.

->“Even oxygen, the element we inhale, is highly toxic when provided at a sufficiently high partial pressure”

As to your nonsense about your so-called “metabolic poisons:”

Toxicity to human beings (your "metabolic poisons") of CO2 is not an issue, at all, where the "greenhouse effects" you mention are concerned.

I don’t know if you even understand what “partial pressures” are.
As a chemical engineer, I do.
(given your phrasing, then you might, hence my speculation that you may possibly be a liar and not just a poseur).

I’m not a Toxicologist, but I’ve known a number of people, mostly chemists, bio-chemists and physical chemists, who made it their specialty and are Toxicologists.

And all of this is irrelevant as well.
This is so basic as to not not require one to be a toxicologist.

Yes, pure oxygen (O2) is dangerous to human beings. What of it?

****
First:

If YOU are “going to” presume to speak about greenhouse effects,” then YOU “have to get the" physical conditions “right.”

In dealing with the earth’s atmosphere, in the context of the greenhouse effect (‘global warming’ . . . ), then the temperature and pressure ranges of interest are the VERY narrow ranges that make life on earth possible.

The claim being made that we are in danger of an increased temperature range, is only A VERY SMALL increase. Pressure ranges are irrelevent (those kind of allegations have not been made).

In none of this, do pressures or temperatures even approach those in which CO2 or O2 undergoes phase change from the gaseous to the liquid state; never mind approaching Critical Temperature or Critical Pressure.

As to toxicity, your ridiculous “metabolic poisons,” then in my experiences it’s most commonly been a matter of most people’s confusion between of the difference between Carbon Dioxide (CO2) and Carbon Monoxide (CO).

Where this issue is concerned, and the temperature and pressure ranges within it:

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is always highly toxic to human beings, and can kill in small quantities (asphysiation due to physical blockage of receptor sites, preventing O2 circulation through the bloodstream).

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an innocuous gas, that is not dangerous to human beings, at all.

CO2 is a byproduct of human metabolism: Our bodies produce it as a byproduct of the combustion reaction (O2 + xHCx =>H2O + CO2) and we exhale it.

The primary danger to human beings from CO2 is under enclosed conditions, and it is a matter of concentration of gases in the atmosphere (dilution of O2 in the enclosed atmosphere: effectively an issue of oxygen deprivation, or asphyxiation, due to reduced quantities of O2 being inhaled with each breath, and NOT toxicity as in what you call “metabolic poisons”).

[An example that would be popularly known would be that of Apollo 13, when the CO2 filtration system malfunctioned].

[This is probably the kind of instance in which your use of partial pressures could be used in an attempt to confuse, confoud and sound sophisticed].

IN NO WAY, are these conditions even remotely relevant, where the issue of "greenhouse effects" (or 'global warming,' 'greenhouse gasses," . . . ) is concerned.

No such quantities of CO2 are being emitted by human activity.

CO2 continues to be converted to oxygen and water, via photosynthesis (the largest chemical reaction on this planet).

=>“Saying CO2 is harmless because humans exhale it is stupid,”

CO2 is an innucous gas, harmless to human beings, under the conditions being addressed within the issue of global warming.

Toxicity to human beings (your "metabolic poisons") of CO2 is not an issue, at all, where the "greenhouse effects" you mention are concerned.

Human beings inhale CO2, produce CO2 by our own metabolisms, CO2 circulates harmlessly through the human blood stream, and CO2 is exhaled by human beings.

It is not a dangerous gas to human beings.

If that sounds stupid to you, then YOU are the scientifically illiterate,” or you are a liar.

Chemman| 4.20.09 @ 7:14PM

cdc; you might also want to get the basic science correct. If you check the National Science Standards you will see that something called the "Carbon Cycle" is to be taught. The "Carbon Cycle" shows how CO2 is cycled between phototrophs and heterotrophs. Yes Co2 can be a metabolic toxin for humans, but that toxic effect doesn't come into play until somewhere above 4% (40,000 ppm) CO2 in the atmosphere. Considering that CO2 currently is about .038% and its current rate of increase is around 1 part per million per year we have a long ways to go to see any toxicity assuming photosynthetic life forms don't increase to take up some of the overproduction.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 7:50PM

=>“The claim being made that we are in danger of an increased temperature range, is only A VERY SMALL increase. Pressure ranges are irrelevant (those kind of allegations have not been made).” [Paul Crowley]

Just to be clear:

Increased temperatures have been the primary concern where “greenhouse effects” are concerned. The very small increase that I mention, being alleged, if true, would pose a danger to life on earth as we know it (human life being my primary concern).
I made this statement primarily because the kind of increased temperatures and pressures that would make CO2 a dangerous compound to human beings is irrelevant to the issue of “greenhouse effects.”

Aspects of “partial pressures,” and a danger of CO2 to human beings due to high or low temperatures and pressures, are issues for astronauts, deep-sea divers, safety concerns in physical and chemical processing, special technologies and other such special-case situations.

Again, these aspects, and that of toxicity of CO2, are irrelevant where “greenhouse effects” are concerned.

Big Leo| 4.20.09 @ 8:27PM

I guess that they will put the carbon caps into action slowly, so there is no big jump in energy costs and hidden costs. They will boil the frog slowly.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 8:27PM

=>“we have a long ways to go” [Chemman| 4.20.09 @ 7:14PM]

Hi Chemman:

You’re right.

In this instance, A VERY LONG Way to go.

It’s among the reasons (not the only one, since cdc wasn't clear on precisely what he was referring to) that I say that toxicity of CO2 is not even remotely relevant to this issue.

In this instance, CO2 emissions would have to increase exponentially and all vegetation, especially and including marine, on the planet have to die before this could become even remotely relevant.

There are problems. They are man-made, and mostly over the course of the past 30-40 years.

They should be addressed (most never should have happened, to begin with).

They’re being sensationalized, and and have been for over 25 years running.

In combination, they’re being used to scare-up precisely this Diaster scenario. . .

stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 4.20.09 @ 8:27PM

Waxman's notion that 'science has spoken' is chilling. He needs to read 'State of Fear' by Michael Crichton. I'm considering organizing a nationwide campaign to flood his office with copies that might alert him to the concept that there is another side to this madness.

Does Waxman/Pelosi have any conception of the revolt they would have to deal with if they succeeded in radically boosting energy prices?

Maybe that is what it will take to rid the country of these fools. Is it possible that Rahm Emanuel knows the truth?

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 9:30PM

=>“cdc; you might also want to get the basic science correct.” [Chemman| 4.20.09 @ 7:14PM]
->in reply to:
“if your going to criticize greenhouse effects you have to get the science right. . . . otherwise you come across as scientifically illiterate.” [cdc| 4.20.09 @ 5:15PM]

Hi Chemman:

For what it’s worth, then I don’t believe that it’s only an issue of being ‘scientifically literate’ or 'mathematically numerate.’

I don’t believe that this is the problem, either.

The truth is that the majority of people in the world are not, never have been, and never will be.

For those who are, or, who are in some degree numerate and have received education and training in the physical and/or biological sciences and technologies of some kind, then no single human being can be an expert in every aspect even of his own specialty or specialities, never mind his respective science, or the whole of what constitutes Science.

Forget it.

The same can be said of a great many things.

I believe that the problem has to do with ethics.

That’s ultimately what drives the direction that scientific investigation proceeds in, the development of technologies from it, and what one does with his education and/or training.

It’s why all of this can be the politicized mess that it has become, especially within the past 20 years, especially post-Cold War, 1989 onward.

The formation in moral nihilism, or amoral ethical formation, of the majority of the population has led to, and facilitates, all of this.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 9:54PM

"Waxman's notion that 'science has spoken' is chilling." [stmich(DenierBoy)rick| 4.20.09 @ 8:27PM]

Hi stmich:

I agree with you. Such a notion is chilling.

The Paradigm Shift

The Paradigm Shift developed by Thomas S. Kuhn in graduate work and dissertation in the mid-to-late 1950s and his 1962 essay, "The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" (republished in 1970, begun to be popularized in the mid 1980s, and now formally integrated into American education; university level following the 1987-91 reforms: An entire generation of older scientists and engineers had to pass into retirement or die off, before this could happen. Most rejected it).

The Paradigm Shift has replaced the Scientific Method as the description of how scientific investigation proceeds.

The Paradigm Shift facilitates, precisely, the concept that: "science has spoken."

The board of the Royal Geoloical Society declared last year that a new epoch is to be added to Historial Geology.

It covers the period of the Industrial Revolution (which we're still in) and is based upon the entry of large-scale use of hydrocarbon fuels (coal & petroleum).

This decision by the board of the RGS no doubt facilitates the crisis of 'global warming.'

Who are the members of the RGS to say otherwise, since the RGS "represents" the consensus of its membership?

The Paradigm Shift is based upon the notion of the consensus of the members of the scientific community of interest.

ds80| 4.20.09 @ 10:00PM

Shouldn't there be a federal limit as to how many Waxman photos appear in one web site? Health issues, and all. I mean, that's a LOT of nostril to have to suffer through.

Angel| 4.20.09 @ 10:01PM

You're right, Paul: Human beings suck. Now that we've established that; what's YOUR solution? You're smart as hell at pointing out the terrible truth, do you also possess the wisdom to help us improve our sorry lot?

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 10:04PM

Typo Correction:

The board of the Royal Geological Society declared last year that a new epoch is to be added to Historical Geology.

Sorry about the typos. I’m sloppy, I admit, and apologize.

(And, it may be the Royal Geologic Society, I don't recall. I'm not a member. ACS and AICHE would be the consensus opinion of The Pardigm in my case, whether other members and myself agreed or not. . . ).

Angel| 4.20.09 @ 10:04PM

I agree, ds80--no way am I gonna eat dinner for a few hours after looking at that mug. What do you have to do to get a nose like that? I want to know, so I can avoid that particular behavior at all costs.

MT| 4.20.09 @ 10:08PM

I don't know about a federal limit, but there certainly should be a decency limit.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 10:48PM

=>“You're right, Paul: Human beings suck.” [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 10:01PM]

Hi Angel:

No. I never said this.

I never even suggested that “Human beings suck,” as you so crudely phrase it using the vulgar term that you Have Been Taught to use.

I remember when, not very long ago, those who called themselves conservatives pointed out, rightly, that there is nothing good about the society sinking into this kind of vulgarity.

Your nick doesn’t describe you very well.

This makes you sound like an awfully seedy “angel.”

Or is it supposed to represent a Fallen Angel?

If you have a problem with my pointing that out, then: Tough.

If you can’t speak like a descent human being, then get used to it.

***
I did mention

“danger to life on earth as we know it (human life being my primary concern).”

And, I did say that:

“For what it’s worth, then I don’t believe that it’s only an issue of being ‘scientifically literate’ or 'mathematically numerate.’

I don’t believe that this is the problem, either.
. . .

I believe that the problem has to do with ethics.

That’s ultimately what drives the direction that scientific investigation proceeds in, the development of technologies from it, and what one does with his education and/or training.

It’s why all of this can be the politicized mess that it has become, especially within the past 20 years, especially post-Cold War, 1989 onward.

The formation in moral nihilism, or amoral ethical formation, of the majority of the population has led to, and facilitates, all of this.”

If you wish me to elaborate further, then I'd be glad to do so. I don't make strong statements, lightly.

My opinions on such matters are rarely only those that Have Been Taught to me by others (especially political hacks).

->“You're smart as hell at pointing out the terrible truth.” [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 10:01PM]

No. I’m just mostly unreformed, religiously and otherwise, recognize a good bit of what’s wrong, and why, and smart enough to know what I do and I don’t know, and to try to look at what the problem is before advocating a “solution.”

I never advocate a solution, blindly, that Has Been Taught to me by someone else (especially political propagandists).

It’s why I knew, and still know, that there is no such things as a “compromise between science and ethics,” as G.W. Bush stated in 2004, as reason for his reversal on his position on stem cell research, between the time that he was a presidential candidate and the first president to approve federal funding for it (about 10 months’ time).

I can point out plenty more, and plenty from Democratic Party politicians also.

Negatives on the on the part of one (such as G.W. Bush or John McCain), are not automatically positives for the opponent (such as John Kerry or Barak Obama, in this case), and the converse is true, as well.

It’s why I can’t be accused of having been a so-called “useful idiot” to the Republican Party for the past six years, nor to the Democratic Party, either, and won’t be to either one anytime soon in the near future.

It may not be much, but, at this point in time, it’s at least something, and definitely better than nothing at all or than being a so-called “useful idiot” who takes part in bringing about the very thing that harms him and others.

Iron Sights| 4.20.09 @ 11:06PM

If anybody needs to be "capped" it's some of these looney leftist libtards in Congress. If they pass cap and trade in any form, they need to be traded at the next election. Man made global warming and cap and trade are the two biggest government scams ( next to Second Amendment caused violence in Mexico ) going today. I hope to Hell this administration is a one term wonder, for all our sakes.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 11:39PM

=>"next to Second Amendment caused violence in Mexico" [Iron Sights| 4.20.09 @ 11:06PM]

Hi IS:

It’s not just the gun issue that violence in Mexico is attempting to be used for, but also the legalization of narcotics.

The libertarian fronts, and propagandists, are pushing this one, heavy.

Pat Buchanan, the libertarians’ “paleo-conservative” puppet (the “paleo-conservatives” being a creation of the self-named “paleo-libertarians”), has ‘come out of the closet,’ for this issue, and is trying to shepherd his readers into believing that America now faces an
unavoidable choice between legalizing drugs or facing a failed state to the south of our border. The argument being that legalization of narcotics in the U.S.A. will automatically bring about the demise of the drug cartels.

It’s being, and has been, propagandized as a truism, but it’s not necessarily true, and there are examples that strongly question whether or not legalizing narcotics in the U.S.A. will bring about the demise of the drug cartels.

There is and plenty to demonstrate the misery of company produced & distributed narcotics for general sale to a country’s population.

Buchanan’s ‘between a rock and a hard place,’ ‘lesser of the two evils’ argument is rubbish.

There’s still a choice on this.

Nothing good for human beings will come of legalizing drugs (Only for SOME human beings: Distinctly those kind of human beings who have formed themselves as human excremet and who are the parasites on the majority of the population, thriving upon others' misery).

Reverse dust bowler| 4.20.09 @ 11:46PM

Kulifornia is a beautiful state with even better weather. But sadly I am looking to move eastward in the near future. The democraps have destroyed this once-golden state with high taxes, environmental regulations, unrestricted illegal immigration, and the usual power grab in Sacramento. They want to build a progressive utopia which will not work. So this native Kulifornian is considering Oklahoma or Texas--before Kim Jong mentally ill tests a nuke on Los Angeles.

Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM

Well, you sure can rant a blue streak Paul, do you have any solutions? You must be the life of the party in your circle. Do you ever smile or laugh? Too bad if you don't--makes life even more difficult, and could explain your ever-present sour mood.

Paul Crowley| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM

Buchanan presents his argument in the manner of (to use Angel’s phrase) a "terrible truth.”

It’s a rhetorical device and tactic.

Buchanan’s “terrible truth” is false.

Smitty| 4.20.09 @ 11:59PM

Well, reverse; godspeed on your trip east. Be aware that Texas voted McCain 55% to Obama's 45% in 2008. The demos/ACORN are working mightily to turn the Lone-Star State left. I hope you guys can withstand their assault. Good luck.

Paul Crowley| 4.21.09 @ 12:01AM

=>"Well, you sure can rant a blue streak Paul" [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM]

Hi Angel:

No. I've made no "rants."

You must be reading that into what I've written.

=>"your ever-present sour mood." [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM]

You must be reading this in also.

I don't even pretend to know someone's "mood" via this medium!

Angel| 4.21.09 @ 12:12AM

Well, maybe that's one gift I possess that you don't! I'm not a republican toady either--I won't be anyone's useful idiot. I admire your integrity, Paul. I also try to live my life with courage and integrity, and it's not always easy.

Paul Crowley| 4.21.09 @ 12:23AM

=>“do you have any solutions?” [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM]

Hi Angel:

For a beginning. One should not let others lead him astray or into taking part in something that results in his own and others’ harm (“perfidy:” betrayal by trust).

One should not too easily allow others to form his opinions for him or teach him How To Speak and How To Think.

Another solution I just gave to Iron Sights.

Ignore Buchanan and his fellow libertarian’s attempt to present the situation as bleaker than it is and make people believe that we have no choice but to legalize drugs, or that legalizing drugs would be good.

There’s a couple of specific answers to your VERY general question.

=>“Do you ever smile or laugh?”

All the time.

Like I said, you must be reading in too much into what I've written.

So, another solution for you (or at least advice):

Don’t believe that you have the capability to ascertain that someone is ranting, is in a sour mood, or thinks poorly of the human race, via only this very limited medium.

Trust me, I know: You don’t. You've demonstrated it here tonight.

Now, I'm a couple hours ahead of you out on the coast. Time for bed. Good night Angel, sleep tight!

Paul Crowley| 4.21.09 @ 12:33AM

=>“I'm not a republican toady either--I won't be anyone's useful idiot. I admire your integrity, Paul. I also try to live my life with courage and integrity” [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM]

Hi Angel:

Good for you (seriously, good for you).

->“Paul. I also try to live my life with courage and integrity, and it's not always easy.” [Angel| 4.20.09 @ 11:55PM]

I know Babe, believe me, I know.

[just playing with the “babe” crack!].

I do know what you mean.

Understand, I usually try to use descriptive terminology. I do understand that with all of the name calling these days, that can often be misunderstood.

I’m not just moralizing, trying to be sensational or "vent" (I've never been into the pop psychology stuff).

I have no intention of being nasty.

I’m always ready to explain my statements.

I hope that helps.

Again, good for you, Angel.

And, again, good night!

Angel| 4.21.09 @ 12:39AM

Paul, I'm glad that you laugh and smile all of the time--it makes me feel better. I don't want to think that there's no hope; I love our country too much to give up. I just lobbed a couple of tiny barbs in your direction to see what you were about--and you showed me. I like you! So, you see; my little strategy worked! ;) Sleep well, Paul.

Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM

Mr. Crowley,

If I may correct you on an early post, Apollo 13's CO2 filtration system did not malfunction. The LEM was designed to handle two occupants, not three. Hence the CO2 build-up.

The problem was the LEM and the CM were made by different companies; one had round filter cartridges, and the other had square ones. They were able to make them work eventually, thank God.

I agree with your statement about science and ethics. I think it is simpler than you state and has been going on longer also. But I'm not in the field as you are, so I could be wrong.

I base my assumptions on a paper I read on an Englishman's blog, the name of which I can't recall at the moment. The main point of the paper was, beginning with WWII and into the Cold War, scientists learned quickly that fear is how one obtained funding. Almost all science funding during WWII had to contribute to winning the war. The Manhattan Project got the most funding.

Next came Sputnik and the space race. Fear of Soviet warheads falling from the sky meant more money for rocket research. Then LBJ declared war on cancer. The author of this paper said in the mid-60's if you wanted a grant for research, your proposal had better say somewhere on it that it would help find a cure for cancer.

Ever since then scientists have played the game to get funding, or just lied. Some (Carl Sagan comes to mind) decided they could use science to push their ideologies and politics. Invent "Nuclear Winter" to push the nuclear freeze movement. Recall the Alar scare, breast implants, mad-cow disease, coffee, etc.

I'm not sure how this fits in with the "Paradigm Shift", I'm not familiar with it. I'll have to read up on that. I am interested in your thoughts on the paper which I summarized.

ruth| 4.21.09 @ 1:32AM

Carl Sagan: "Billlllllllions and billllllllllllions of light years away." Sorry, I couldn't help myself.

Colin| 4.21.09 @ 5:23PM

For the moment I've only one question regarding Henry Waxman: "What's up with his nose?"

ds80| 4.21.09 @ 7:18PM

Ahhh. So Rahm Emanuel **will not allow** the cap and trade plan to move very far along the legislative process.

How delightful it will be to watch the NostrilDamus battle the Ballet Dancer. Oy vey iz mir!

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 2:47PM

=>“Mr. Crowley, If I may correct you on an early post, Apollo 13's CO2 filtration system did not malfunction. The LEM was designed to handle two occupants, not three. Hence the CO2 build-up. The problem was the LEM and the CM were made by different companies; one had round filter cartridges, and the other had square ones. They were able to make them work eventually, thank God.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

I apologize for the delay in responding.
I just saw your comment this morning, and had to
wait for lunch time (good thing I’m a fast typer).

You’re right. Thanks for the clarification.

Command module (CM).
Lunar landing module (or whatever its formal name was that the acronym stands for)
(LEM).

It was the original malfunction that led the Apollo 13 crewmen to have to use the lunar landing module for a purpose for which it was never originally designed to be used for (to substitute for the command module, so as to return to earth), and for which it never was used on that particular Apollo flight.

The CO2 filtration system in the command module was designed for an enclosed space with 3 crewman.
The CO2 filtration system of the lunar landing module was designed for an enclosed space with 2 crewman.

The original malfunction required the 3 crewmen to move from the command module to the lunar landing module, and then discard the command module.

The consequence of 3, rather than 2 (per design), crewman resulted in overtaxing the CO2 filtration system of the lunar landing module.
.
The CO2 filtration system of the lunar landing module had to be modified to allow its use by 3 crewmen, by using components (filters) from the CO2 filtration system from the command module.

Due to the different CO2 filtration systems, the system had to be jury-rigged with items available on hand.

Devising the modification required cooperation between the astronauts and NASA engineers and astronauts on earth.

As you note, the task was performed successfully.

The ‘people on the ground,’ devised a suitable modification and produced a procedure to direct the crewmen in how to implement it

(Score one for the “office types!”).

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 2:53PM

=>“They were able to make them work eventually, thank God.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

Your “thank God” probably does have some bearing on the ethical aspects of all of this, given the American, and the world populations, at the time of the Apollo 13 incident.

***
For Context:

My mention of Apollo 13 was in the context of pointing out the difference between Carbon Monoxide (CO) and Carbon Dioxide (CO2).

The comments were made in the context of addressing cdc's comment.

Just to be clear:

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is neither a toxin nor a metabolic toxin (which are formal terms) to, or of, human beings. It is never a poison to human beings.

Carbon Monoxide (CO) is always a poison to human beings and, therefore, is toxic to human beings.

Carbon dioxide (CO2), under very specific conditions (the Apollo 13 example is only one), can contribute to conditions which can be hazardous to human beings (The conditions themselves are what can be toxic to human beings, in a colloquial use of the term).

These conditions are irrelevant where the issue of "greenhouse effects” is concerned.

In summary:
Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is an innocuous gas that is never a poison to human beings (even in the specific instance of the Apollo 13 example): It is NEVER a toxin or a metabolic toxin, in the formal meanings of these terms. NEVER.

Carbon Monoxide is a chemical compound that is always poisonous to human beings (ALWAYS, regardless of concentration), and in that sense is toxic to human beings.

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 3:03PM

=>“humans excrete all kinds of metabolic poisons which in sufficient quantity are
harmful.” [cdc| 4.20.09 @ 5:15PM]

=>“Yes Co2 can be a metabolic toxin for humans.” [Chemman| 4.20.09 @ 7:14PM]

Hi Chemman:

I didn’t bother to quibble over your phrasing, since this an informal exchange and you addressed a specific context in which CO2 can contribute to an atmosphere which is toxic to human beings, doing so in the context of cdc’s comment:

cdc mixed numerous terms, some from different branches of science, in a (unsurprisingly) confusing manner.

But since cdc is bringing up “scientific illiterate” (whatever that is precisely), then I’ll quibble a bit where some of this phrasing is concerned.

Use of either “toxin” or “metabolic toxin,” which are both formal terms, is confusing phrasing.

I’ve already addressed that Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is not a toxin or a metabolic toxin to human beings, in the formal meaning of the terms. It’s never a poison to human beings, and, therefore never toxic to people.

Carbon Dioxide (CO2) is in no way like Carbon Monoxide (CO).

Contrary to what one might infer from cdc’s statement (he doesn’t state it explicitly), Carbon Dioxide is not a “metabolic toxin” to human beings, produced by human beings.

cdc’s statement that “humans excrete all kinds of metabolic poisons which in sufficient quantity are harmful” is true.

Those chemical compounds and micro-organisms that are poisons, specifically to human beings, are expelled via human urine, feces and sweat. . ..

The term “excrete” in the context of CO2, human beings, or “greenhouse effects,” (never mind oxygen and “partial pressures” and the rest) is certainly non-scientific, and highly peculiar, phrasing.

The only instance in which I can think that the term excrete combined with CO2 might be used, in a scientific sense, would be in microbiology, botany in particular, where CO2 is a waste product of a cell. It is not “metabolic toxin” to human beings (in the formal meaning of the term, in any concentration).

So, cdc’s peculiar phrasing can also be taken in the manner of a reverse of anthropomorphism, in which attributes descriptive of micro-organisms (such a bacteria) are wrongly applied to human beings.

[Unfortunately, both of these,
anthropomorphism, placing human attributes onto lower animals, even mircrorganisms in some extreemes,

and this reversal of it,

describing human beings in terms of attributes descriptive of lower animals, vegetation, and even micro-organisms,

are all-too common by all-too many these days].

At any rate, I don't mean quibble too much with you Chemman. It's cdc's comment that really is the worst.

As phrased, it's impossible to know, precisely, just what cdc did, or did not, intend to say.

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 3:24PM

“I agree with your statement about science and ethics. I think it is simpler than you state and has been going on longer also. . . . I base my assumptions on a paper I read on an Englishman's blog, the name of which I can't recall at the moment. [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

Thanks for your very thoughtful comments.

I’m a quick typer, but not this quick.

I’m affraid that I’ll have to come back. That will be early this evening.

In the meantime, what you assume regarding a time frame: I agree with you post-WWII and would say that elements of what you’re writing about go beyond WWII, at least to WWI and earlier.

***
Just to make myself clear:

Where science and technology concerned:

1. Scientific investigation and and Technological development, on the whole, ARE NOT un-regulated activities.

2. Scientific investigation, and Technological development, proceed according to how one directs his resources (human, natural, industrial, financial. . . ) (i.e. Colloquially: “where the money is spent”).

3. Where one’s resources are directed is dependent upon one’s ethical system.

#2, I recently learned, is also held by the American Society For the Advancement of Science.

# 3 is something that I always add (and itself, not an original observation).

Again, I apologize for having to leave.

But, I’ll be back, early this evening.

Nick| 4.22.09 @ 3:38PM

Mr. Crowley,

I didn't mean to leave the impression I was trying to discredit your point about CO's & CO2's effects on humans. I know you are correct. I work in the heating and A/C field and have to deal with both gasses.

I just saw a mis-statement and wanted to correct it, that's all. LEM stands for Lunar Excursion Module, in case it comes up the next time you play Trivial Pursuit! I'm really into the moon race and I just watched "Mo0n Machines" on the Science Channel last week.

Looking forward to your next post.

pete| 4.22.09 @ 4:31PM

Does anybody that posts a comment for "American Spectator" work for a living??? This Dave Mathews cat needs an applause because of his ability to piss off conservatives intelligently. Like Obama and his "doublespeak" that has liberals urinating on themselves, entranced on his words thinking he is the "savior," stay tuned for further results. Obama's Cabinet is the first in history without any business leaders, only lifetime people, like Obama, who never ran a business or signed a payroll check.

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 7:22PM

=>“I'm not sure how this fits in with the "Paradigm Shift", I'm not familiar with it. I'll have to read up on that.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

To be clear, I don’t credit Kuhn’s Paradigm Shift as being responsible for the low ethical state of the modern day American the population, it only makes matters worse.

The formation in moral nihilism and the amoral ethical formation of the majority of the population that mention is primarily due to the social cultural upheavals, 1967-present (2009).

I was commenting on stmich’s statement that:

->"Waxman's notion that 'science has spoken' is chilling." [stmich(DenierBoy)rick|
4.20.09 @ 8:27PM]

As I noted to stmich:

“The Paradigm Shift has replaced the Scientific Method as the description of how scientific investigation proceeds.

The Paradigm Shift facilitates, precisely, the concept that: ‘science has spoken.’ "

If you’re interested in reading the essay:
["The Structure of Scientific Revolutions" by Thomas S. Kuhn (Second edition, enlarged, University of Chicago Press, 1962, 1970; ISBN 0-226-45804 (paper)].

***
This may be what you confused as my having set a timeline.

Kuhn’s formal education (Bachelor’s and Master’s) was in Physics. He then shifted to History and this essay grew out of his doctoral dissertation in History (all in the decade of the 1950s).

His essay was first published in 1962, and then republished in 1972.

It was popularized, beginning in the mid 1980s Replacement of the Scientific Method by the Paradigm Shift has been formally integrated into American education, university level down, following the 1987-91 reforms, implemented mostly by 1992.
As I noted, an entire generation of older scientists and engineers had to pass into retirement or die off, before this could happen, since most rejected it.
This also followed the large discontinuity of the scientific and technical workforces in many industries, following the layoffs, and new-college-graduates hiring slumps, 1986-93.

Again, I don’t blame the Paradigm Shift on the “formation in moral nihilism, or amoral ethical formation, of the majority of the population.”

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 7:44PM

=>“I didn't mean to leave the impression I was trying to discredit your point about CO's & CO2's effects on humans. . . I just saw a mis-statement and wanted to correct it, that's all. [Nick| 4.22.09 @ 3:38PM]

Hi Nick:

Not at all.

I didn’t get that impression at all.

You were absolutely right.

I appreciate the correction.

I only elaborated further and repeated the points on CO & CO2 in case I confused the issue earlier.

I’d also point out, that any attempt at trying to liken “Spaceship Earth” and “greenhouses gasses” with the ‘atmospheres’ in vehicles such as these would be absurd. Hence my verbosity and comments on cdc's phrasing. . . :)

=>“I'm really into the moon race and I just watched "Mo0n Machines" on the Science Channel last week.” [Nick| 4.22.09 @ 3:38PM]

Ahhhh.. It’s fresh for you, then. I’m working off of memory over here (We were all into the space race 40 years ago!). Was the description of the incident I typed up at lunch time at least reasonable?

=>“LEM stands for Lunar Excursion Module, in case it comes up the next time you play Trivial Pursuit!” [Nick| 4.22.09 @ 3:38PM]

Thanks! I’m sure that I’ve heard this before, but I obviously forgot. I tried but couldn’t think for the life of me what it stood for.

=>“I work in the heating and A/C field and have to deal with both gasses.” [Nick| 4.22.09
@ 3:38PM]

That’s a good field for familiarity with a lot of science and technology.

You’ve also been on the Front Line of the consequences due to the ‘global warming’ and
‘hole-in-the-ozone-layer’ crises kicked off by NASA’s meteorologists since the mid-1980s, no?!

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 7:54PM

=>“I agree with your statement about science and ethics. I think it is simpler than you state and has been going on longer also. . . I base my assumptions on a paper I read on an Englishman's blog, the name of which I can't recall at the moment. . . . I am interested in your thoughts on the paper which I summarized.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

My main thought on the paper itself is that I really can’t comment on the paper, since, at
the least:

1. Neither you nor I know the title of the paper.
2. Neither you nor I know the name of the author.
3. There are no quotes from the paper, regarding what the author’s thesis is, or supporting
the argument, but only your paraphrased summary after reading the paper “on an Englishman's blog.”

->“The main point of the paper was, beginning with WWII and into the Cold War, scientists learned quickly that fear is how one obtained funding.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

No question that there's been on unrelenting string of world-wide crises since 1946, kicking off with the Overpopulation Crisis. . .

But, if I understand your paraphrasing correctly, then it sounds like you’re what I termed the “politicized mess that it has become, especially within the past 20 years, especially post-Cold War, 1989 onward,” on:

1. Scientists?

2. Scientists who are attempting to obtain funding of some kind (private industry, business, government, NGOs. . . )?

If so, then how are these scientists doing this?

Even if one learns something, and even if it’s true, then that doesn’t mean he is able to DO something with the newly-gained knowledge.

I can't for the life of me imagine the country's scientists, never mind those world-wide, getting sufficiently organized even to set off a particular crisis, even if they did have the means.

Correct my if I'm misunderstanding you!

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 8:01PM

=>“I agree with your statement about science and ethics. I think it is simpler than you state and has been going on longer also. . . I base my assumptions on a paper I read on an Englishman's blog, the name of which I can't recall at the moment. . . . I am interested in your thoughts on the paper which I summarized.” [Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

In summary:

I don’t understand the point that you are trying to make.

You didn’t make one clearly and explicitly.

I don’t know what the assumptions are that you refer to.

You didn’t state any.

So I don’t want to assume what your point, or its basis, actually is.

Truth to tell, I don’t see what you’re written as being simpler than my own point, which was clearer stated and more concise (but not elaborated upon).

I’m not quite sure what you’re referring to as “has been going on longer also.”

The only thing I mentioned regarding time period, was the politicization and controversies regarding science, especially in the U.S.A., which are fairly recent: There have been controversies over technologies derived from scientific investigation in the past, back to the 19th century, but this phenomena of the politicization and controversies regarding what science IS, has occurred primarily within the past 20 years, mainly during the post-Cold War (1946-89) period, 1989 onward.

The controversies in the past were primarily regarding what direction scientific investigation should proceed in (usually with the goal of technological application), what direction technological applications of scientific knowledge proceed in, or over particular technologies derived from scientific investigation.

But this incessant squabbling about what science or technology itself “IS,” and the nonsense about scientific literacy” (whatever that is), is new (except in the so-called ‘Social Sciences,’ economics, history, psychology, . . . where few to no basics are agreed upon, but, rather, are squabbled over incessantly).

For example: There were calls for dismantling atomic and thermo-nuclear weapons, back during the years 1958-61 (the latter dubbed the “H-Bomb” at the time).
However, There was absolutely no popular disbelief, or even questioning, of the phenomena of Fission or Fusion.

The only disagreement was over the technological APPLICATIONs derived from the physical sciences: Namely, which type to TO use, or to develop, and which ones NOT TO use, or to develop further.

****
My statement regarding the incessant squabbling over “real science” (and other such terms in popular squabbling, that were), foreign to the physical sciences, even 15-20 years ago, was:

“I believe that the problem has to do with ethics.

That’s ultimately what drives the direction that scientific investigation proceeds in, the development of technologies from it, and what one does with his education and/or training.

It’s why all of this can be the politicized mess that it has become, especially within the past 20 years, especially post-Cold War, 1989 onward.

The formation in moral nihilism, or amoral ethical formation, of the majority of the population has led to, and facilitates, all of this.”

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 8:04PM

=>[Nick| 4.21.09 @ 1:21AM]

Hi Nick:

I’m sorry. I don’t think that my thoughts on your post were of much use.

Paul Crowley| 4.22.09 @ 8:53PM

=>“Does anybody that posts a comment for "American Spectator" work for a living???” [pete| 4.22.09 @ 4:31PM]

Hi Pete:

I’ve wondered this myself.

Or if posting a comment FOR “American Spectator” is what some people do for a living?

I’ve also wondered if “This Dave Mathews cat,” if not on the payroll FOR “American Spectator,” is doing work on a ‘piece work’ theme basis for it?

Just wondering. . .

->“Like Obama and his ‘doublespeak’ that has liberals urinating on themselves, entranced on his words thinking he is the ‘savior,’ stay tuned for further results.” [pete| 4.22.09 @ 4:31PM]

I think you’ve got this dead on. "Doublespeak" is right.

I don't know that he's really that good at it. But the administration sure has a lot of people ("journalists") running interference and causing misdirection, left, right, libertarian. . .

->“Obama's Cabinet is the first in history without any business leaders, only lifetime people, like Obama, who never ran a business or signed a payroll check.” [pete| 4.22.09 @ 4:31PM]

Actually, I think those who have dubbed it Clinton Administration III are pretty close. It’s about what it is, even if some individuals have shifted positions a bit.

There are some in the cabinet who have ‘signed payroll checks,’ so to speak, and have “business experience.”

Of course, since 1983, those of us who used to speak of “industry” began To Be Taught to speak in terms of “business.” The one-time, pre-1983 distinction blurred quickly, about that time onward.

Post-1998ish and the same thing has happened with Finance.

It's all Business now.

Obama’s cabinet people with “business” experience are all mostly from the Finance branch of present-day ‘Business.’

The U.S.A., Japan, western Europe, and the British Commonwealth (and associated satellites) and it’s all one big integrated, interdependent, batch now.

And now to regulate this newly developed 'Business' infrastructure.

As you say, “stay tuned for further results.”

Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM

Mr. Crowley,

My apologies for being unclear. And, yes, I did infer from the date of "The Paradigm Shift" that you were saying 1961 was when scientists began ignoring their ethics.

You are correct about being on the front lines with the "hole in the ozone layer" nonsense. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, you have to pay extra for freon reclamation of your A/C and refrigerator; a totally unnecessary expense.

I'll try to better explain the paper I read. The Englishman is Dr. John Brignell and his site is NumbersWatch.co.uk., by the way. I tried in vain to find the paper, and I might be conflating something I read on Dr. Brignell's site with one of Michael Crichton's speeches. It was a while ago.

The point was during WWII, entomologists, botanists, and anyone else who couldn't help with the war effort, could not get research funding. (Although, there was a guy who thought he could get bats to set off incendiary devices all over Tokyo and got $1 million to see if it would work.) Fear of losing the war meant only research that appeared to contribute to victory got funded.

After the war things started to get back to normal. Then the Cold War funneled more money into military research. After Sputnik was launched in 1957, NASA was formed and rocket scientists got a huge chunk of the funding pie. Again, fear determined what research got funded.

When LBJ declared war on cancer, research scientists learned if they wanted a gov grant, their research better help find a cure for cancer. The squeaky wheel got the grease.

This quest for gov funding led to some scientists inventing crises and scares through "studies". They hyped these studies in the media. The corruption of peer review led to the pushing of political agendas and lobbying for more gov funds, i.e. Nuclear Winter & AGW.

This was the problem in ethics I thought you were referring to, Mr. Crowley. Hope that cleared things up. If not, let me know. Thanks for your replies.

Paul Crowley| 4.23.09 @ 12:11PM

=>“My apologies for being unclear. And, yes, I did infer from the date of "The Paradigm Shift" that you were saying 1961 was when scientists began ignoring their ethics.” [Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM]

Hi Nick:

Just to let you know that I received this.

I looked in last night, but didn’t see any response.

I’m glad I kept the web address to look in today.

As to apologies, then for nothing. Nothing to apologize for.

Thank you for the clarifications.

This has a lot to do with what I was talking about.

And, you're right, it does go back further, than just
the past 40-50 years, to be sure. Although, I think that the past 30 years have resulted in a major change.

I think that there’s a lot of aspects in what you describe.

I’ll get back to you again this evening.

Thanks again thank you for the clarification!

=>"Mr. Crowley"

P.S. You can call me Paul. Since, I'm calling you Nick, it's only right.

Don't get me wrong. I appreciate you courtesy. It's a nice break. I've been called some pretty lousy things on this web site so far.

Paul Crowley| 4.23.09 @ 12:18PM

=>“After Sputnik was launched in 1957” Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM]

Hi Nick:

After your first mention of Sputnik, and then of your interest in the space race and the Apollo program, yesterday, then I thought of this and that you might find it intesting.

How America was almost the first to launch a satellite into space in 1953-54.

This is an exerpt from an interview with Kenner Hertford in 1974, on file at the Truman Library.

I knew Kenner, he was a friend of the family, much older than me, and a very interesting man with interesting careers: First in the Army and then the Atomic Energy Commission (AEC). His last position with the army was as Chief of Research during the end of the Truman administration. He always took interest in me, my becoming an engineer, and my time in the navy. On my first ship, I worked as part of the Talos guided missile battery, and then I went on to Terrier/SM-1 batteries. From the period he was head of the AEC field office out of Albuquerque, Kenner was very familiar with the old bumblebee program (I believe) that developed the navy’s 3-T guieded missile program (most of the applied testing was done at White Sands Missile Range): Talos, Terrier and Tartar (the latter two are fore-runners to to today’s Standar Missile batteries).

In the 1970s and 1980s, one of the many things he would talk about was how he graduated from Houston High School in 1919. It was THE ONLY high school in Houston in 1919!

There’s also a story in this interview that he liked to repeat: His friends and neighbors in Houston telling him that he was foolish to accept an appointment to West Point in 1919, since there would be no more wars, due to our having just fought the “war to end all
wars.”

Kenner was born in 1900, I believe, lived to 95 years old, and I’ve noticed that he’s being USED these days by the Roswell Space Alien types. I remember that he had told me about his being interviewed by the two who wrote the book that sensationalized it, about
1980-81, if I remember correctly. He told them that he didn’t know anything about any space aliens and so didn’t have anything to help them. Now I’m seeing quotes ascribed to him, that are just flat wrong (and don’t even get his branch of service correct: listing USAF, ret., rather than USA, ret.). It’s the times that we live in.

Anyway, I’ll include this. You may not be interested in the whole of the interview, but I thought that you might be interested in this story of his about an American satellite in 1954 using the Redstone missile.

I’ll include the exerpt her and the web address below.

Again, I’ll post again tonight.

***********************
The Air Force was anxious to make some sort of a deal, and I went to the Army General Staff. The decision was to not give up the Army's role in anti-aircraft artillery or missiles.

I'm talking about the interface relations with the Air Force and working with them and also the Navy. I got along with my opposite numbers in the Navy R&D very well. We were even going to go to the Galapagos in 1954 and put up a satellite by using the Navy and the Redstone modified missile.

I went to the Army Chief of Staff with a colonel in the Ordnance Corps and explained what a satellite was. I told him we could put it up without instruments in it. It would be inflated, was yellow, and could be traced to measure the circumference of the earth and other scientific date. He thought the idea fantastic and asked

[76]

how much it would cost?

I told him we estimated two million dollars. The Navy would furnish the transportation down to the Galapagos on the equator. We could use the airport there, and take three Redstones missiles down.

I said the funds would have to come out of Research and Development. I explained that the purpose of this would be to demonstrate that it can be done; first, from the scientific point of view, then, second, from a national prestige point of view.

He was most interested in the proposal, but then the Air Force found out about it because I told them.
The Air Force said it's an International Geophysical Year and were we willing to declassify the Redstone missile, because anything

[77]

we do with it has to be completely declassified during this scientific year.

The Army stated it was a tactical missile so they wouldn't let us do it. I knew it wasn't the Army's responsibility, but the Navy was really behind it with us in R&D; but I didn't push it. There wasn't any sense in worrying about that when there were other things to fight about.

Then along came the Vanguard. I had told Werner von Braun to keep his work on the satellite Redstone on the back burner in the "back part of the garage." He had the Redstone to continue working on the clusters of Loki rockets to rotate and a balloon would be inflated with carbon dioxide.

In the meantime out at JPL they developed a little 5 pound instrument package. The Vanguard, was put in the IGY, and you know what

[78]

happened to it on the launching pad. It was called a "Flopnik" after Soviet Sputnik went up in '57. Then they called on Werner von Braun, and he just happened to have something. Then von Braun brought out the Redstone and the cluster of Loki rockets in January of 1958, and he put the five pound instrument package on top and we had our satellite up there.

It could have been done earlier, if the services had gotten together. They work together better now. I don't know, but my feelings for the lads in the offices and the people I see there is that they do get along much better. Then the Air Force was new and trying its wings and didn't want to play second fiddle anywhere.”

http://www.trumanlibrary.org/oralhist/hertford.htm
**************

Nick| 4.24.09 @ 3:05AM

Paul,

Thanks for the link. History and science are my favorite subjects. Your link has both. And I love behind the scenes, oral histories like this. The stuff on the U.N. was great.

I'm not all that formal, by the way. My parents just taught me to show as much respect as I receive. Growing up, I always had to use Mr. or Mrs. when addressing adults.

I don't use my last name because it is ethnic and unique, and I don't need eco-terrorists or other lefty kooks looking me up and keying my car or worse. I tend to be a little harsh with some of the people who post here.

Thanks again for the link, Paul.

Paul Crowley| 4.24.09 @ 10:53PM

=>Nick

Hi Nick:

You’re welcome for the link.

I apologize. I couldn’t make it online last night, I’m sorry.

Paul Crowley| 4.24.09 @ 10:56PM

=>“I'll try to better explain the paper I read. The Englishman is Dr. John Brignell and his site is NumbersWatch.co.uk., by the way. I tried in vain to find the paper, and I might be conflating something I read on Dr. Brignell's site with one of Michael Crichton's speeches. It was a while ago.” [Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM]

Hi Nick:

I’m not familiar with either Dr. Brignell or Michael Chrichton, so I can’t comment on either man or his views.

But, I’ll comment on what you’ve stated and described in your clarification.

Paul Crowley| 4.24.09 @ 11:36PM

=>“This quest for gov funding led to some scientists inventing crises and scares through ‘studies’. [sic] They hyped these studies in the media. The corruption of peer review led to the pushing of political agendas and lobbying for more gov funds, i.e. Nuclear Winter & AGW.” [Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM]

Hi Nick:

To be plain: None of this makes sense or is even relevant to the original discussion.

First: This is all irrelevant to the problem that I pointed to:

The politicization of natural sciences of the post-Cold War (1946-89) period, the past 20 years, and the ensuing chaos resulting from it.

The past 20 years has been a steady increase in crises, revolving around the natural sciences, politicization of the crises, and an increase in confusion, fracturing and dividing the American population. It’s gotten continually and successively worse, and has been especially bad for the past ten years.

All of the examples you’ve given here are different in kind from the post-Cold War period.

Everything you list are examples from the period 1941-59 and are events that resulted in unifying the American population in support of coordinated action, and provided the means (funding) to drive scientific investigation and technological development.

Unification of the American population in support of coordinated action, is exactly the opposite of the events of the past 20 years.

Second: Nonsensical.

All of the examples listed confuse effect as cause:

1. Consequences as a cause.
And/OR
2. Things that are at best described as means to an end as the end itself.

By way of analogy: This is akin to blaming smoke as being the cause of a fire.

In every example given:

The Federal Government was the cause.

The responses of individuals and organizations engaged in scientific research and technological development (both government and private industry, business and finance), including “lobbying for more gov funds,” were the consequences.

The allocation of resources that drove the scientific research and technological developments during the period listed, were due to the combined actions of the legislative and executive branches of the federal government.

Legislation that provided funding (the critical feature), that was passed by the Congress, and enacted into law by the signature of the President.

Neither declarations by presidents, resolutiions passed by Congress or rulings made by judges, by themselves, provide the allocation of resources necessary to drive scientific research and technological developments in the direction desired. Only lesilation enacted into law that provides funding is capable of doing this.

Other items listed, such as use of the Mass-Communications Media, crises, “scares" (sometimes the scare if valid), use of studies, “pushing of political agendas” and I would add, inspiring appeals are not causes of anything.

At best they are means used to propagate a message to inform, coordinate, unify, gain intellectual assent, and sustain, the cause: Government Legislation that appropriates Funding so as to drive development.

At worst, they are means which attempt to deceive, for personal gain.

In the manner presented here, it would be possible only if one had the ability to manipute the highest members of government to do so.

Even manipulaton of the Mass-Communications Media, would be insufficient, by itself.

It is completely unrealistic that "some scientists," the vague "they," had the means to manipulate the Mass-Communications Media, 1941-59.

Only the Federal government had the ability to utilize the Mass-Communications Media to propogate a message, in that era.

Lastly, scientists aren't known for becoming rich, then or now.

Government funding is extremely lucrative for some, but not usually for research scientists (lower middle class). This explanation requires one to believe that these people are going to an awful lot of trouble, and a great deal of diabolical brilliance is expended, just to buy a ranch-style in the suburbs and a new motor boat.

[Mass-Communications Media:

The period, 1941-50: Visual & audio: Print & publishing (newspapers, magazines, books, pamphlets, posters, . . . ), broadcast (radio); closed-circuit (newsreels, movies).

The period, 1950-59: Print & publishing (newspapers, magazines, books, pamphlets, posters.. . ), broadcast (radio, television); closed-circuit newsreels, movies)].

Paul Crowley| 4.24.09 @ 11:59PM

=>Allocation of resources determines the direction in which scientific research and technological development proceeds.

Development of organizational structures and physical infrastructure is a critical element.

For WWII, infrastructure was developed, about 1922-40, and government organizational structures, about 1930-40.

Post-WWII, organizational reforms that formed and institutionalized the national laboratories system, out of the WWII special projects, and integrated the system with the American public universities system, was 1946-56.

R&D for private industry and business wasn't integrated into the higher education system, to the degree that it is today, until post-1974, and especially post-1989.

It's impossible to believe that "some scientists" accomplished all of this.

Paul Crowley| 4.25.09 @ 12:20AM

=>Things that are a means to an end. [P.C.]

Hi Nick:

Minus “some scientists” who are after government spending, as being the perpetrators, and instead as some of the ‘means-to-an-end,” then most of what you describe, fear mongering, use of studies, and the rest (especially the fear and misdirection elements), is
more descriptive of the ‘kinder & Gentler’ post-Cold War era of the past 20 years, this it is of the period 1941-59
.
It’s in no way descriptive of the Apollo program, throughout the decade of the 1960s, that put men on the moon in 1969.

This reminds me of rhetorical and theatrical devices employed in a lot of Hollywood movies, other works of fiction, and a good bit of political writing these days: A projection of elements of the present onto images from the past.

So, I have to at least wonder about these men, Dr. John Brignell and Michael Crichton, who you reference as the source of your summary.

I hope this helps.

Let me know if you’d like clarifications or further elaboration on any of my comments.

Paul Crowley| 4.25.09 @ 10:28AM

=>“You are correct about being on the front lines with the ‘hole in the ozone layer’ nonsense. Thanks to the Clean Air Act, you have to pay extra for freon reclamation of your A/C and refrigerator; a totally unnecessary expense.” [Nick| 4.23.09 @ 4:30AM]

Hi Nick:

The hole-in-the-ozone-layer crisis is an interesting example, if nothing else for how fast it all developed, and how it’s developed since.

This is came out of NASA, the same source as global warming, and now the new warning about atmosheric CO2 concentrations, released last year.

I’m aware of the basics of the chemistry, the reactions that are said to place us in danger, and why.
. . But I don’t claim to have familiarity sufficient to call it all nonsense.

Like so much of these atmospheric crises, it does seem to have been developed into a crisis, too fast, with too little knowledge, and regulations have proceeded in something of a half-in, half-out, manner. . .

Where freon is concerned, then, I was somewhat surprised to learn a couple years ago that reduction of its use has progressed slower than I’d have originally thought that it would have (from the news reports of 20 years ago and the subsequent regulations).

My place ‘on the front line,’ where the ozone layer is concerned, has been on the industrial (business) side of it, and I have some familiarity with that: The standards on Nitrous Oxides (NOx) and fired heaters.

And, of course, elements of the clean air act revisions, the legislation on oxygenated fuels, and the subsequent reformulated gasoline kept everyone in refining busy, throughout the decade of the 1990s.

The new low-sulfur standards, have done the same for the past ten years. The problems from the use of ethers, driven by the oxygenated fuels standards, ground water, has kept some busy too.

There’s no question that all of this legislation, and the regulations from it, even though it hasn’t driven the direction of very much basis scientific research, it has served to focus and direct a good bit of technological development related to petroleum refining, and, interestingly, ethanol production.
NASA, EPA, USDA, the petroleum industry and so-called agribusiness all effectively working together!

The refrigerators are actually ‘small potatoes.’

Paul Crowley| 4.25.09 @ 10:33AM

=>“I'm not all that formal, by the way. My parents just taught me to show as much respect as I receive. Growing up, I always had to use Mr. or Mrs. when addressing adults.” [Nick| 4.24.09 @ 3:05AM]

Hi Nick:

I grew up when the Golden Rule was still common (‘do unto others as you would have others do unto you’). I've yet to see anything proposed in the psat 40 years that is superior to it.

When growing up, then there’s no question this was broken by us kids time to time; as kids, unavoidably will at times. What young boy doesn’t ‘suffer’ from what could be termed “attention deficit disorder?”

That’s a term that hadn’t been coined yet (or at least
not commonly used or known about, when I was growing up). Generally, simple disciplines were sufficient to get back our attention.

As a late adolescent and grown man, then, self-discipline, and some of even the basic formation when young, makes any slippage less of a problem, and is usually sufficient to put the temptation to respond in kind in check, and be resisted.

I was the same as you: I always used Mr. and Mrs., sir and ma’am, when addressing adults when I was growing up. It was common where and when I grew up. Mostly, I still do with people, especially someone I meet for the first time, unless it’s been made clear
that we’re all on a first name basis.

Paul Crowley| 4.25.09 @ 10:49AM

="I've yet to see anything proposed in the psat 40 years that is superior to it."

Make that the past 50 years. That is about the time that the social sciences began to publicly rise to a place of prominence; especially the new psychology, that was popular, about, 1961-91.

It morphed into the self-help movents and group theraphy movements of about 1978-89 (becaming spiritualized with elements from eastern religions, effectively little more than modified 19th century theosophy, in "the 1980s," about 1978-89).

I was never much impresssed by the "we used to think, but we now know" statements used to facilitate its continued developments and re-develoments ("evolution?"), and their propagation, throughout society, circa 1961-89.

Wholesale Lingerie| 9.5.09 @ 10:24PM

sexy lingerie lingerie

supra shoes| 10.15.09 @ 1:21PM

Supra Shoes
Mens Supra Cruizer Cool Shoes

supra shoes| 11.17.09 @ 2:16AM

Supra Shoes
Supra Skytop Shoes