Is NASA, NOAA, and the EPA scientific groups or gvmt organizations?

Question

Why should anyone assume that NASA, NOAA, and the EPA are pure scientific organizations that provide us with unadulterated objective science?

These are gvmt departments who need to play politics with the politicians in Washington DC to get the funding that they need, as they are not funded by any other source.

With the democrats currently in control of the purse strings, would NASA, NOAA, and the EPA be able to get the funding they seek if the data they find contradicts with the political goals of the democrat party?

Or do they have to get in line and use their funding to insure the data matches the dogma of the majority party to insure future funding?

Answer 1

They aren't pure scientific groups. But I'll read what NASA or the NOAA has to say on their websites. When the EPA gets a hold of it they twist it and spin it anyway they feel will get them what they want. Like that graph Dana likes to display all the time. Don't you wonder why it ends when it does? My guess is the trend of the last few years doesn't match the idea they are trying to get people to believe.

Answer 2

Mikira is right about the graph. If the graph continued then it would show a stale mate in temperature readings which does not fit the belief. I guess being a meteorologist I find it hard to believe that NOAA would put biased numbers on their site for the public to view. Now EPA is completely biased along with any other environmental group. If NASA and NOAA are corrupt then we have no hope of real data for the general public to view which in return will help lead the believers to a complete victory of junk science. But I do not feel this is the case for NASA or NOAA but I've been wrong before.

Answer 3

Both.

But the "dogma of the majority party" was that global warming didn't exist, until recently. And the tune these organisations have been singing for years hasn't changed, although, until recently, they were censored heavily.

The National Academy of Sciences, the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Institute of Physics, etc. ARE purely scientific organizations. And they agree.

On the other side you have a few individual skeptics who can't even convince each other that one of their many conflicting theories is right.

The debate may not be over, but if this was a boxing match, the referee would have stopped it a LONG time ago. One side is way overmatched.

MIKIRA, MARK G - I don't understand. The graph ends in 2006. How is that "early"?

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc_triad.html

Answer 4

The President appoints administrators to run the operations of each of these agencies. While the democratic Congress does budget money to the agencies, approvable by the President, they have no direct control over the day-to-day operations. The democrats really have very little leverage in terms of what the agencies do at this point.

Bush is the boss until 2009.

Answer 5

It wouldn't matter who was in charge in Washington, because some people will always see a conspiracy theory.

Typical politically motivated attack. Attack the messenger if you can't defeat the message.

Answer 6

Don't you find that to be a bit of an odd question seeing that these American organizations agree with other government and non-government organizations around the world?