European eco-zealots want international enviro-crimes court
By Michelle Malkin • December 1, 2008 01:45 PM

And a comment I made to that post, regarding what the Presidential candidates had to say at CPAC 2008 about U.S. Sovereignty.

Hello Thanks heaps for this indeed!… if anyone else has anything, it would be much appreciated. Great website Super Piano Links http://www.en.Grand-Pianos.org Enjoy!…

Faced with one of the coldest and snowiest winters on record, Democrats have been scrambling for a logical explanation as to the cause for this extreme weather in light of the fact that global warming is “settled science,” as the Administra…

Science has morphed into researching what those controlling the grant purse strings want, and concluding what is necessary to obtain those grants.

Indeed. And that is precisely what President Eisenhower warned could happen.

Virginia Patriot brought this up in an earlier comment.

Many people are familiar with only one of the two warnings Eisenhower gave in his farewell address. Many people are familiar with the warning about the “military-industrial complex“, but they are not familiar with the warning about the “scientific-technological elite“:

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central, it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

On February 15th, 2010 at 11:35 pm, Papa Louie said:

The mistake Pons and Fleischmann made when they announced their discovery of cold fusion was to publish their data and allow other scientists the opportunity to try to reproduce their results. When no one could, the whole thing fell apart. Perhaps if they had kept their data secret and just asked other scientists to sign a petition, they, too, might have walked away with a Nobel Prize.

…and hundreds of millions in grants for further study.

Problem was then, science was still considered science, and others expected it to be reproduced.

Science has morphed into researching what those controlling the grant purse strings want, and concluding what is necessary to obtain those grants.

…and a jobs program for hacks too lazy to work the old fashioned way.

The mistake Pons and Fleischmann made when they announced their discovery of cold fusion was to publish their data and allow other scientists the opportunity to try to reproduce their results. When no one could, the whole thing fell apart. Perhaps if they had kept their data secret and just asked other scientists to sign a petition, they, too, might have walked away with a Nobel Prize.