A Bush appointee at NASA, in the news for trying to censor statements about the Big Bang, and silence climate expert James Hansen, has lost his job for falsifying his resume, after being caught out by a science blogger
Great work by the blogosphere, and another data point on the close links between climate change denialism and creationism, and of course, between the Bush Administration and fraud.
John Quiggin 
That’s priceless.
The links between creationism and climate change denialism may be starting to loosen, with the formation of the Evangelical Climate Initiative. See:
http://www.theage.com.au/news/world/bush-man-quits-nasa-under-a-cloud/2006/02/09/1139465794018.html?page=2
Of course “evangelical” doesn’t necessarily mean “creationist” or “fundamentalist”, but there is little doubt that the ECI includes such people. Perhaps it just goes to show how de trop climate change denialism really is, if even creationists are balking at it.
NASA is (or has been) a magnificent institution, a real credit to the spirit of scientific enquiry in the United States and the willingness of governments to support it.
If even it has been infected by the politico-religious nuts appointed to senior positions, in this case a 24 year old college drop out, then it is a real worry.
At times like these a little schadenfreude is understandable.
That’s exceptional news.
woo hoo, just like that dan rather got caught out lying by the blogosphere!
march on bloggers!
At least I know the easy way to get a job at NASA now — And to think I thought they employed people because they were good scientists.
Yes Conrad, am working on my own resume right now! Hehehe…..
See, bloggers do serve a very useful purpose.
it’s not all rocket science ya know.
Who gave him the job in the 1st place?
I wanna talk to him – I’m still waiting for my job.
Hmmm,
1. Deutsch issues provocative email October 17
2. NASA internal memo 3 Feb re “the issue of scientific openness and the role of public affairs within the agency”
3. Deutsch quits 7 Feb when false cv exposed by a blogger.
Does NASA have an employee check?
How many other employees in NASA have false resumes?
Can NASA be relied on to be objective?
Obviously NASA’s negligence has assisted in a fraud.
That’s a desperate stretch, Rog. Deutsch was a political appointee imposed on NASA by the Administration. His only job experience was on Bush’s campaign.
As with AWB and the UN, we see the fraudsters and their supporters blaming those who didn’t manage to catch them.
Presidential appointments have been going for eons and it is not a Bush phenomena – it is the spoils of victory. Bush was entitled to ~800 appointments and as Hansen (NASA) said Deutsch was a minor functionary.
I’m not saying there was anything new about it, just that it’s silly to blame NASA for not vetting a political employee and ludicrous to use Bush’s imposition of a conman on NASA, appointed to act as a censor, as grounds for suggesting that the agency, rather than the Administration, is engaged in fraud.
Unfortunately, this kind of reasoning seems to be typical of the anti-science lobby.
The term “imposition” implies that Bush somehow knew that this guy hadn’t graduated from wherever it was he said he had and knew that he was a conman. And there’s no evidence of that. There’s also no evidence that he was sent anywhere to act as a censor. We don’t have to surround ourselves with conspiracies at every turn. What likely happened is that Deutsch got the job as a political payoff for his work on the campaign. Not great but let’s not make this more than it is. It’s garden variety political activity. Just because it’s Bush rather than Clinton, doesn’t make it any more sinister.
John, why is it silly for NASA to not vet an employee?
What I meant;
John, why is it silly to expect NASA to vet an employee?
How high up was Deutsch in NASA’a public affairs office?
Umm, what part of “political appointee” don’t you guys get?
uh, 2 words, Samuel Alito
Here’s some info on the political appointee process.
http://64.233.179.104/search?q=cache:vQ6yLtPMS8sJ:www.rand.org/pubs/monograph_reports/MR1253/MR1253.ch3.pdf+%22political+appointees%22&hl=en&gl=us&ct=clnk&cd=1
Let’s remember too that Deutsch wasn’t a political appointee in a scientific capacity. He was in the public affairs office.
I hope their pilots aren’t hired under similar circumstances.
You mean astronauts?
Heck of a job, Deutschie! (from Eric Alterman)
Maybe this bloke gave Al Gonzales the killer argument about George Washington’s use of wiretaps.
Glad it’s your garden and not ours avaroo.
garden?
I would say that one Deutch out of 800 appointees hardly supports a charge of governmental fraud and a policy of anti-science.
Bush has a record of appointing more women and blacks than Clinton, how does that reflect on the theory of evolution?
“Bush has a record of appointing more women and blacks than Clinton, how does that reflect on the theory of evolution?”
?????!
Paul Norton there seems to be a mix of views in the green Evangelical movement this one- http://www.evaneco.com/
seems to be a green Evangelical Libertarian AGW sceptic who also is a creationist.
Rog you seemd to have missed the press about the Union of Concerned Scientists report:
” On February 18, 2004, 62 preeminent scientists including Nobel laureates, National Medal of Science recipients, former senior advisers to administrations of both parties, numerous members of the National Academy of Sciences, and other well-known researchers released a statement titled Restoring Scientific Integrity in Policy Making. In this statement, the scientists charged the Bush administration with widespread and unprecedented “manipulation of the process through which science enters into its decisions.â€? The scientists’ statement made brief reference to specific cases that illustrate this pattern of behavior. In conjunction with the statement, the Union of Concerned Scientists (UCS) released detailed documentation backing up the scientists’ charges in its report, Scientific Integrity in Policy Making.”
He’s not anti-science he’s just against any science that affects the business bottom line, just like many anti-environmntalists here.
There is nothing new in the friction between the science community and the political field – whilst scientists are skilled in their field they invariably make lousy politicians.
When environmentalists/scientists start dictating how every aspect of life should be conducted they should expect a healthy response from the elected representatives.
And of course, for the anti-science lobby, pointing to inconvenient facts, such as the universe being about a million times older than a literal reading of the Bible would suggest, or that human action is causing climate change, amounts to “dictating how every aspect of life should be conducted” and produces the kind of “healthy response” endorsed by Rog.
I think you need to be a bit more objective John, to borrow a sailing term “you are taking a lightening tack to oblivion.”
Just because a bunch of highly qualified people freely cast their opinion doesnt mean that it is right, particularly if the opinion is made in a field in which they have no qualification.
For instance, accountants and financial advisors that I know say that of the professions doctors and dentists are the biggest suckers for ‘blue sky’ tax schemes, doesnt matter how airy fairy they will buy it. Tea trees, olives, deers, jojoba beans, you name it they are in for it. They dont take financial advice kindly.
But as my doctor mates always tell me, their medical decisions are always science based.
“Just because a bunch of highly qualified people freely cast their opinion doesnt mean that it is right, particularly if the opinion is made in a field in which they have no qualification.”
Which is why it seems like a good idea to listen to the people who do have the qualifications, rather than work out what you’d like to be true, then assume it is true (Intelligent Design, Global Warming contrarianism, Rifkin and similar on GM, Marohasy on the Murray etc etc).
John, I do listen but when I read that your considered opinion is that the resignation of a 24 year old PR “bit player” is indicative of fraud in the Bush Administration I do wonder at how you arrived at your conclusion considering the substantive lack of evidence.
This seems like a complete non sequitur, Rog, but anyway, reread the sentence. The Deutsch case is a data point, that is, one of many observations that should be considered in drawing an inference. In this case, the conclusion being drawn is well supported by a large body of evidence.
and what is that large body of evidence?
and who is the “anti-science lobby”? Are there people who refute science in all areas of life? I don’t think so.
‘and what is that large body of evidence?’
Brown at FEMA, Negroponte and Bolton at UN, Kissinger (!) to run 911 commission, butterball Powell at the FCC, Tomlinson at BBS, Gale Norton and Stephen Griles at Interior, Todd Whitman at EPA, Karen Hughes to settle the Arabs, Speedy Gonzales as tame house counsel, Pitt at the SEC, Chavez at Labor, Harriet for the Supremes, Alito for the Supremes! – judges like Pickering and legal appointees like Yoo and Bybee, Garner and Bremer in Iraq, Wolfowitz to the poor old World Bank, Abraham at Energy, Otto Reich at State, Poindexter for TIA, Abrams for Near East at State, Thomas ‘Enron’ White at the Army, Libby, Addington, Hannah, Wurmser, Feith, Abrams, Grossman etc to surround Cheney, Hager and Thompson at FDA, Paige at Education, Delay to sit on Congressional Ctee on Abramoff for cryin’ out loud. And Sembler and Schlieffer to Canberra, for some local colour. This is by no means comprehensive.
What a crew. Either foxes in the henhouse, yes-people, backers owed rewards or famously dim bulbs, sometimes a mixture of these elements, but as appointees ranging from poor to disastrous. And this leaves out the upper crust of incompetence and zealotry: Rumsfeld, Rice, Rove, Ashcroft.
The quality of leadership in your country is appalling avaroo. Not that ours is much better. Unfortunately, your leadership, good or bad, exerts a powerful influence on ours. We’d prefer some good leadership for a while now, if it can be arranged.
What fraud have Negroponte and Bolton committed? What fruad have any of the people you mentioned committed?
I agree pols are horrible people, no matter what country the come from. I just don’t agree that it’s party dependent. You must choose your own leadership, we aren’t responsible for you.
Sorry, thought Deutsch as a ‘data point’ related to the ‘political appointee process’, not ‘on the close links between climate change denialism and creationism, and of course, between the Bush Administration and fraud.’
avaroo, ‘garden’ referred to your ‘It’s garden variety political activity.’
NIMG thanks.
‘You must choose your own leadership, we aren’t responsible for you.’
This appears to be your fallback position on everything. You’re one of those happy to globalise your power, but not your responsibility.
I do believe that everyone is responsible for themselves, Glenn. I’m quite happy here at home, personally, I’d ignore the ROTW if it were my decision. No foreign aid, no intervention, even if Australia or the Uk were attacked. Sorry.
the term “garden variety” means that it’s ubiquitous, it’s in everyone’s garden.
It would appear that the Bush admin is guilty as charged and it only needs the addition of a little evidence to support the case.
Dishonesty aside, the idea that a pimply-faced boy can tell someone of the stature and maturity of James Hansen what to say about his work in public is laughable.
“It would appear that the Bush admin is guilty as charged and it only needs the addition of a little evidence to support the case.”
Hmm, rog, I assume you’ve recently emerged from a prolonged visit to the Amazonian jungle or similar. Do you need a potted history of the period 2000-06? You could start by using Google (it replaced Altavista a while back !) and searching on the names listed in Glenn Condell’s comment.
Or are you of the belief that blog posts alluding to well-known facts need to include detailed reference lists?
As advised, I put a random sample on Google; “john bolton” + fraud.
No evidence of Bush fraud but plenty of UN fraud.
When Clinton left office he stacked the system with democrat appointees, was that action evidence of fraud?
When Bush came in he didnt remove them, he actually used them (eg Clark), was that evidence of fraud?
Back to the jungles for me….
Certainly, if you’re both unaware of fraud under Bush and unable to find evidence of it, you might be better off in the jungles, Rog.
Meanwhile, it appears Four Corners tonight will show that the same kind of political suppression of inconvenient science has been going on here.
We’ll see tonight how broad 4 corners report is, but it looks like they will be concentrating on greenhouse (which is important enough). However, the problem at CSIRO is far broader. From the moment they decided to put a woman whose major experience was in defending the tobacco industry (including saying to both the Senate and on national TV that nicotene is not addictive) in charge of the publicity for the organisation it was inevitable that real science would be suppressed in favour of right-wing ideology.
Australasian Science has been tracking this story for two years, and it has had brief runs in the mainstream media (mainly the Canberra times) but this is the first time it has hit the big time.
The situation at CSIRO parallels that at the ABC under Jonathon Sheir, the difference being that there people noticed and put a stop to it quickly, where as at CSIRO its been allowed to run for years.
I actually bought a copy of Australasian Science for the first time last week. You are a very good writer Mr “Stephen L” 🙂