Well, here's one scientist NOT satisfied with the new administration

Well, actually, I'm withholding judgement until he makes a few more concrete decisions, but so far appointing a guy who is pretty much a Luddite as his science advisor isn't a big plus in my book. Pretty much though I am reacting to this article from the NY Times with the headline "Scientists satisfied with new administration". The article goes on with this canard that the Bush administration was "anti-science" and the article talks about Bush's "restrictions" on science. Which is BS. The article talks about restrictions on stem cell research. OK, Bush didn't allow government funded embryonic stem cell research (a position I disagree with), but he didn't place restrictions on the research if it was privately funded. The article also goes on to talk about Obama reversing "its predecessor’s strict controls over the government’s main scientific agencies". What the deuce are they talking about??? What "strict controls"???

The article states: "On issues like stem cells, climate change, sex education and contraceptives, the Bush administration sought to tame and, in some cases, suppress the findings of many of the government’s scientific agencies". That is all pretty much just lies. Look, the administration didn't buy into the man-made global warming hoopla. Good! I think if you want to see real suppression of science you'll see it under the Obama administration when they crack down on anyone doesn't buy into the man-made global warming storyline.

It's really sad. It is just amazing how the Times can out and out lie like they do in this article.