The Sky is Green Even if it's Blue

I read an article this morning which stated that an official with the Smithsonian Institution is reporting that a recent exhibit on the ever changing climate of the world was toned down in fear of ticking off the government. Before I get into that though, a little bit of background. Having lived in Washington my whole life, I have been fortunate enough to visit most of the museums at least once if not many more times. With the number of family and friends who have come to town, I have had many opportunities to go and see the wonderful museums and displays that showcase the many wonders of our world. As a government institution, the Smithsonian relies heavily on Congressional funding and private donations in order to survive. One of the proud facts of the museums is that they do not charge admission since the government is footing the bill. As such, whether for good or for bad, the Institute has to walk a fine line between reporting the facts or sequestering them in order to keep the government happy.

So what happened with the climate exhibit? Well, it reportedly originally indicated that the effects on the climate were indicative of a trend whereby we would see massive climatalogical changes within a few hundred years. The report is rather consistent with what many scientists and researchers have been saying. The exhibit did not accuse anyone or the other for having been responsible for these changes; on the contrary, from all accounts, the exhibit merely pointed out that the trends indicated that if nothing else changes then there will be problems in the future. Apparently this set some of the higher ups at the Smithsonian on edge because their fear is that those in the government who may not agree with this research will vote to withold funding for no other reason than to hold a grudge against a stance with which they don't agree. Now if this isn't a classic case of steamrolling then I don't know what is.

The sad part is that this is not the first time that something of this sort has happened. In 2003 when the Air and Space Museum put up a display on the Enola Gay (the plane which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima), there were protests by those who believed it celebrated the loss of so many people in Japan whereas veterans argued that the exhibit focused too much on the losses and damage caused by the dropping of the bomb. This was one exhibit which seemed to draw fire from both sides of the fence and those left standing in the middle had to struggle to find the right balance or risk the loss of funding. See, the reason for this fine balance is because the job is to remain balanced and if you tip the scales in favor of one side versus another, you run the risk of losing support. Unfortunately when the government holds the money it means that they have a significant say as well. If they feel that the exhibit is controversial enough that they may be associated with it (since they foot the bill) then the best way for the government to be diassociated is to not give any funding.

What happens then is that by trying to appease one side you end up painting a different picture. Money talks and that's the truth and will likely remain the truth until we reach that future utopian society where wealth has no meaning. When an Institute such as the Smithsonian is forced into shying away from the truth for the sake of a few more dollars for new exhibits, it is skewing the truth from the people. All politicians, liberal or conservative, all have key phrases which they use to rally support. They use expressions like, "for the sake of our children", or "for the future", or "so our children will live in a better world." All these expressions tend to become meaningless after a while when you begin to hear about how they are influencing the educational process. Because the Smithsonian officials worry that someone in the government may get upset over the fact that global warming is occuring they are forced to report that it's not happening but it's quite possible.

It's a way of smoothing over the wrinkles and passing the buck off for later generations to deal with. This completely flies in the face of what they say. They claim to want to help the future but they are acting to only cloud it further than it already is. Whether you believe that global warming is actually occuring or not, for someone to be fearful enough to change their findings means that you already know what you want the people to know and that's not necessarily the truth. It's like telling a small child that the sky is green even if it's blue. Over time the child will begin to believe it because they won't know any better. So has our telling the child that made it better or worse for the kid? By the same token, organizations like NASA or the Smithsonian should not be working in fear of losing funding because what they find flies in the face of what the government is trying to promote as fact. Institutes of learning and research shouldn't be used as sounding boards for the government; they should be places to find the truth, no matter how much it hurts to hear it or see it.