Starfleet Jedi

I know I usually don't start political thread in this forum, and rarely comment on them, preferring to remain aloof, but given the recent pessimism, I thought I would provide a contrast. Earlier in this forum, I expressed optimism about Obama's coming presidency based on the fact that he seemed much more willing to support the use of science in setting policy, to the point of grabbing a Nobel laureate for his cabinet.

My optimism has not been misplaced so far. He has opened up stem cell research, ended the "War on Science," eliminated funding for what research has shown to be ineffectual (even damaging): "abstinence-only" sex education, directing federal funding for "evidence-based" alternatives, and sent substantial funding towards scientific research as part of his stimulus package.

Say what you will about his foreign policy priorities or his economic philosophy, the man shows every indication of being a big fan of good rules of evidence and empiricism - and that, I like.

"War on Science"? Surely you jest.

If you really want to call the Bush policies a "war on science", then there's no reason not to call Obama's policies a "war on science" from the opposite ideological spectrum. After all, both have opinions on science based as much (if not more) on their ideologies than on the actual science.

And the same general points could be made, such as Obama's demonstrated ignorance of the true costs and capabilities of "green" energy production, his support for economy-busting cap-and-trade, his belief in the new religion of human-caused catastrophic global warming, his belief in the power of fetus-harvested stem cells that have never produced any benefit and ignorance of those adult stem cells which have, and so on and so forth.

Whether or not you accept the examples above is irrelevant . . . war on science comes from both ideological quarters.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:I know I usually don't start political thread in this forum, and rarely comment on them, preferring to remain aloof, but given the recent pessimism, I thought I would provide a contrast. Earlier in this forum, I expressed optimism about Obama's coming presidency based on the fact that he seemed much more willing to support the use of science in setting policy, to the point of grabbing a Nobel laureate for his cabinet.

My optimism has not been misplaced so far. He has opened up stem cell research, ended the "War on Science," eliminated funding for what research has shown to be ineffectual (even damaging): "abstinence-only" sex education, directing federal funding for "evidence-based" alternatives, and sent substantial funding towards scientific research as part of his stimulus package.

Say what you will about his foreign policy priorities or his economic philosophy, the man shows every indication of being a big fan of good rules of evidence and empiricism - and that, I like.

He's identified as a Democrat, so he's serving Democrat soup.
It's working within expected parameters.

2046 wrote:"War on Science"? Surely you jest.

If you really want to call the Bush policies a "war on science", then there's no reason not to call Obama's policies a "war on science" from the opposite ideological spectrum. After all, both have opinions on science based as much (if not more) on their ideologies than on the actual science.

It's not exactly a term I invented. It's what you see on the editorial pages of Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal of the normally apolitical AAAS.

And the same general points could be made, such as Obama's demonstrated ignorance of the true costs and capabilities of "green" energy production, his support for economy-busting cap-and-trade, his belief in the new religion of human-caused catastrophic global warming, his belief in the power of fetus-harvested stem cells that have never produced any benefit and ignorance of those adult stem cells which have, and so on and so forth.

In every one of those cases, he's agreeing with the general consensus of working scientists in the field. It is researchers in the field who are asking that they be allowed to do stem cell research. Climate scientists by and large agree that global warming is human caused and likely to cause significant costs.

Once you come to that point - that reducing carbon emissions is essential - "cap-and-trade" is the approach most favored by classical economists, who hold that a market is the most efficient way to price a resource. The alternatives are carbon taxes or stiff specific regulations targeting each and every type of emitter. On every single one of those issues, Obama is following scientific consensus and structuring policy in response to scientific studies.

Whether or not you accept the examples above is irrelevant . . . war on science comes from both ideological quarters.

The objections to President Bush's science policies from the scientific community has been completely unprecedented in history. Also completely unprecedented has been how many scientists left the Republican party out of disgust over Bush's anti-scientific policies and anti-intellectual style.

I don't think there's ever been a partisan identification gap like this one in the US scientific community.

Mr. Oragahn wrote:He's identified as a Democrat, so he's serving Democrat soup.
It's working within expected parameters.

Color me pleased, then, that "Democrat soup" involves paying respects to science and evidence-based policies on the domestic level.

I know that he doesn't represent a change in the US foreign policj priorities of the last half century, and that bothers you; I know you don't like the bailout of corporate interests that he has undertaken, following straight in Bush's footsteps. However, there is some good news out there.

My only question in regards to this specific topic is what are his policies going to be regarding NASA. As he has yet to appoint a new director for NASA (an interim director is currently serving), this question remains to be answered.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:

Mr. Oragahn wrote:He's identified as a Democrat, so he's serving Democrat soup.
It's working within expected parameters.

Color me pleased, then, that "Democrat soup" involves paying respects to science and evidence-based policies on the domestic level.

I know that he doesn't represent a change in the US foreign policj priorities of the last half century, and that bothers you; I know you don't like the bailout of corporate interests that he has undertaken, following straight in Bush's footsteps. However, there is some good news out there.

Yes, there are, but I can't help... I just can't help knowing that a Democrat will just throw some Democrat stuff and those begging for it, and the opposite will happen with a Republican. It's just stating the obvious, but that's the problem. It's just too obvious, too expected.
It's music paper, same hellish merry go round.

- I vote Blue because I like Blue and I want Blue stuff.
- Ok. Here's some Blue then.
- Oh cool. Thank you mister Blue.

There's not even a real big surprise.
The real problem is that it does not heal the roots. It's sugar coating, and sometimes it just happens to put the emphasis on trees and vials rather than stars and stripes.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's what you see on the editorial pages of Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal of the normally apolitical AAAS.

Google AAAS politics. The first hit is for a link page, part of the Web Resources of the Center for Science, Technology, and Security policy. The link is to this website, the one with Obama's picture a la Dear Leader, with the even more spooky text beneath saying "Obama Presidency offers new era of hope for Americans at a time of great challenge."

Yeah, it's just one link of many on that page. But I hardly see any links to sites that might be expected to have pictures of Bush like that, for instance.

Failure to recognize their bias (no matter if it is their failure or someone else's) does not make them unbiased.

In every one of those cases, he's agreeing with the general consensus of working scientists in the field.

Except that statement is incorrect. It makes for good propaganda, which is where you heard it, but it isn't true. And no matter how many contrary voices within the supposed consensus emerge to rebuke the claim of consensus, the claim of consensus is still made, sometimes even more forcefully/desperately.

But frankly, this notion of consensus-as-fact (or -as-science) is absurd anyway.

It is researchers in the field who are asking that they be allowed to do stem cell research.

And other researchers in the same field point to the utter lack of anything worthwhile from fetal stem cells, compared with the adult stem cells that are a bounty. This isn't a question of consensus, it's a question of results.

Climate scientists by and large agree that global warming is human caused and likely to cause significant costs.

Or climate scientists by and large disagree with same. It rather depends on who you ask. Gore says they agree, but then Gore's neither unbiased nor terribly honest.

Speaking of results, though, have any of the global warming alarmist predictions panned out yet? Aren't they still peddling the hockey stick fraud? I heard Gore took it out but supposedly lots of the online nuts keep using it.

I'm not saying I agree with every bit of the Republican science-related policies. Abstinence-only education smack in the middle of the MTV society is retarded, for example. "But", as they say, "their heart's in the right place" . . . isn't that what they say about all the myriad failed Democrat policies?

Hell, why mention the market at all? It isn't like government intervention in the economy makes for actual market conditions. Indeed, it can have the reverse effect.

Are there anti-scientific types in the right wing? Hell yes. As an agnostic I need not go terribly far to see it, and then you get those Ben Stein types who pander to the right wing with a religious anti-science agenda using leftist political maneuvering tactics and holy crap, I wanna slap a fool.

But I'll be damned if I'm going to kneel before the purveyors of a politicized, propagandized version of a science still in its infancy, a science seemingly incapable of making large-scale predictions, and . . .

Well, you get the point. And the same leftist anti-scientific ideology (again, being separate from the right-wing anti-scientific ideology) is what is going to drive us away from logical power sources like clean coal, nuclear, and economic fossil fuels.

2046 wrote:

Jedi Master Spock wrote:It's what you see on the editorial pages of Science, the prestigious peer-reviewed journal of the normally apolitical AAAS.

Google AAAS politics. The first hit is for a link page, part of the Web Resources of the Center for Science, Technology, and Security policy. The link is to this website, the one with Obama's picture a la Dear Leader, with the even more spooky text beneath saying "Obama Presidency offers new era of hope for Americans at a time of great challenge."

Yeah, it's just one link of many on that page. But I hardly see any links to sites that might be expected to have pictures of Bush like that, for instance.

Failure to recognize their bias (no matter if it is their failure or someone else's) does not make them unbiased.

I said normally apolitical.

The AAAS is a very old and very large organization tied to a very old and very broad scientific journal. Science and Nature are beyond doubt two of the most prominent and influential publications. To see, in the opinion pages of Science, such a lopsided treatment of two US presidents - that is unprecedented - and would not have happened without a truly profound difference in how those two presidents treated science.

Except that statement is incorrect. It makes for good propaganda, which is where you heard it, but it isn't true. And no matter how many contrary voices within the supposed consensus emerge to rebuke the claim of consensus, the claim of consensus is still made, sometimes even more forcefully/desperately.

Not at all. For example, the fraction of climate scientists who do not believe global warming is caused primarily by human activity has declined sharply.

What we see is an upswing in the amount of Fox News airtime allocated to any climate scientist who thinks otherwise.

But frankly, this notion of consensus-as-fact (or -as-science) is absurd anyway.

It is researchers in the field who are asking that they be allowed to do stem cell research.

And other researchers in the same field point to the utter lack of anything worthwhile from fetal stem cells, compared with the adult stem cells that are a bounty. This isn't a question of consensus, it's a question of results.

Quite simply, stem cell research in the US was virtually shut down before most researchers had a chance to get anywhere with it.

The prudent scientific measure would be to investigate both lines of research until the field is matured.

Or climate scientists by and large disagree with same. It rather depends on who you ask. Gore says they agree, but then Gore's neither unbiased nor terribly honest.

Climate scientists do by and large agree. It's only a small number who do not; all the major aggregates of opinion have shown landslide support.

Speaking of results, though, have any of the global warming alarmist predictions panned out yet? Aren't they still peddling the hockey stick fraud? I heard Gore took it out but supposedly lots of the online nuts keep using it.

Global average temperatures have continued to rise since the early beginning of global warming "alarmism." That's the major prediction being panned out. Thirty years of continued warming since those predictions began have been quite convincing.

Two other things you might look at are ocean acidification - the ocean absorbing CO2 is one of the major damping factors in these models, and variation in how it is treated accounts for much of their variation - and the prediction that the Gulf stream will falter.

The Gulf stream prediction is one you might want to pay particular attention to, since it's a prediction that was being discussed a lot in the 1990s and seems to be starting to pan out now. This one is particularly tricky, because the Gulf stream brings a lot of warmth to the US and northern Europe, and so as a result of global warming, we expect to see a small measure of localized cooling. (In related news, Australia, of course, is expected to roast.)

The predictions about Arctic and Antarctic melting have also been panning out so far. Much was made of one particular ice shelf's continuing stability in the news lately, but overall, we're seeing a lot of reduction in ice and a corresponding sharp rate of sea level rise (as predicted).

So... yes, so far we've seen:

• Temperature increase (as predicted)
• Ice area loss (as predicted)
• Ocean pH decline (as predicted)
• Sea level rise/ice volume decline (as predicted)
• Gulf stream starting to falter (as predicted).

Global warming alarmism? So far, pretty good track record for the past thirty years since it first became "fashionable." There's the prediction of increased hurricane energy, but that one hasn't really been completely confirmed or denied yet. There's a lot of statistical noise, and some concerns about macro-level pattern shifts (e.g., the effect of the Gulf stream) on hurricane formation.

I'm not saying I agree with every bit of the Republican science-related policies. Abstinence-only education smack in the middle of the MTV society is retarded, for example. "But", as they say, "their heart's in the right place" . . . isn't that what they say about all the myriad failed Democrat policies?

And that's one of the major policy changes I mentioned. Most important is that rather than simply taking the left side of the left vs right "culture war," Obama cites empirical evidence as the reason for the policy change.

Well, you get the point. And the same leftist anti-scientific ideology (again, being separate from the right-wing anti-scientific ideology) is what is going to drive us away from logical power sources like clean coal, nuclear, and economic fossil fuels.

At the risk of sounding cliche, there isn't such a thing as clean coal. Manmade CO2 emissions are rapidly causing a pH disaster in the ocean.

Barack Obama's campaign talk of "clean coal," in fact, mark one of his furthest departures away from real science and towards political pandering. Nuclear is the way to go. Just ask Steven Chu, his energy secretary.

Jedi Master Spock wrote:What we see is an upswing in the amount of Fox News airtime allocated to any climate scientist who thinks otherwise.

I've never seen one on Fox. But I've never even seen the concept, except for "deniers" a la Holocaust deniers, on any of the other networks.

And other researchers in the same field point to the utter lack of anything worthwhile from fetal stem cells, compared with the adult stem cells that are a bounty. This isn't a question of consensus, it's a question of results.

Quite simply, stem cell research in the US was virtually shut down before most researchers had a chance to get anywhere with it.

In the United States, perhaps . . . I only had time to skim that but I can see what it is arguing. But in any case, that is not worldwide.

Speaking of results, though, have any of the global warming alarmist predictions panned out yet? Aren't they still peddling the hockey stick fraud? I heard Gore took it out but supposedly lots of the online nuts keep using it.

Global average temperatures have continued to rise since the early beginning of global warming "alarmism."

1. That was never the prediction, except in a general sense, like predicting the score of a baseball game but then saying "well, bats were swung, as predicted".

2. Not necessarily. Rather depends on where you look and with what. In August 2008 they were talking about the 18 month cooling trend that had occurred. Then there was the stuff about the rather significant error that was found with NASA's data. And so on.

Two other things you might look at are ocean acidification - the ocean absorbing CO2 is one of the major damping factors in these models, and variation in how it is treated accounts for much of their variation - and the prediction that the Gulf stream will falter.

Y'know, it was when they started discounting the activity of the frakking sun that the alarmist types lost me on their modeling efforts.

The simple fact is, climatology is far too young a science to be basing massive changes on. And given the extraordinary claims they're making, they're going to need extraordinary evidence to get me going.

Nuclear is the way to go.

I concur, but Obama's sluggish on it (pandering to his left wing base that opposes it) and hasn't been supporting the Yucca waste site, according to quickie research.

Guys, we already have a global warming thread you know. Could you please post your GW related stuff over there, please?

Hey, talking about good science for the betterment of humanity, will Obama backpedal on most wrong things Clinton and Bush allowed to happen?
Will he act against CODEX Alimentarius?
Oh wait, isn't there a Clinton working close to Obama?
...

All along boys and girls! Come on! Join us!

2046 wrote:In the United States, perhaps . . . I only had time to skim that but I can see what it is arguing. But in any case, that is not worldwide.

Ah, but the US does so much of the heavy lifting in science! In any case, I think there's a good point to saying it will be another good few years before researchers are anywhere near having mined out the possibilities. If nothing promising seems in the works, the line of research will dry to a trickle as a direct result of that.

1. That was never the prediction, except in a general sense, like predicting the score of a baseball game but then saying "well, bats were swung, as predicted".

2. Not necessarily. Rather depends on where you look and with what. In August 2008 they were talking about the 18 month cooling trend that had occurred. Then there was the stuff about the rather significant error that was found with NASA's data. And so on.

Two other things you might look at are ocean acidification - the ocean absorbing CO2 is one of the major damping factors in these models, and variation in how it is treated accounts for much of their variation - and the prediction that the Gulf stream will falter.

Y'know, it was when they started discounting the activity of the frakking sun that the alarmist types lost me on their modeling efforts.

The simple fact is, climatology is far too young a science to be basing massive changes on. And given the extraordinary claims they're making, they're going to need extraordinary evidence to get me going.

I think we're better served talking nuts and bolts of global warming in the other thread. Topical to here, though, is that whether or not you agree with them, the climate science community is as close to unanimous as it can be on the subject. That is evidence-based policy.

I concur, but Obama's sluggish on it (pandering to his left wing base that opposes it) and hasn't been supporting the Yucca waste site, according to quickie research.

Sluggish on the waste issue, yes, but overall, the administration has been supportive of nuclear power, and there's no scientific cause for urgency on the waste issue. (Security reasons, perhaps.)

I am disappointed at the recent pandering to coal interests, though. And that, I will say, is politically motivated, though both parties are on board with that silliness. There is still room for improvement.