House Panel Holds Hearing On "Politically Driven Science" - Without Scientists 347
sciencehabit writes: Representative Louie Gohmert (R–TX) is worried that scientists employed by the U.S. government have been running roughshod over the rights of Americans in pursuit of their personal political goals. So this week Gohmert, the chair of the oversight and investigations subpanel of the U.S. House of Representatives' Natural Resources Committee, held a hearing to explore "the consequences of politically driven science." Notably absent, however, were any scientists, including those alleged to have gone astray.
Scientifically driven politics (Score:5, Funny)
This gives me an idea...
Let's hold a hearing on scientifically driven politics, and don't invite the politicians!
Better still, let's just leave out the politicians altogether. Only problem is, then suddenly scientists would become politicians.
Re: (Score:3)
You mean sanity and logic in politics? Laws that make sense and are rooted in reality instead of panic?
No, we can't have that! That could be sensible, and we can't have that in our legislative.
Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score:4)
You mean sanity and logic in politics? Laws that make sense and are rooted in reality instead of panic?
No, we can't have that! That could be sensible, and we can't have that in our legislative.
Not in a democracy, that's for damn sure. And I'm not being sarcastic.
We like choosing our government policy the same way we choose Top 40 hits or internet memes--purely by the popularity of personal preference. It's my right to vote for people who say good government can be done for free.
It's the same reason our American government prefers to support dictators. You can rely on them better than you can rely on the fickle desires of the general population. Governing is difficult because these are not bullshit issues. It seems to be part of the essential biology of human civilization.
Re: (Score:2)
This gives me an idea...
Let's hold a hearing on scientifically driven politics, and don't invite the politicians!
Better still, let's just leave out the politicians altogether. Only problem is, then suddenly scientists would become politicians.
"scientifically driven politics"?
No, I don't think such a meeting would have scientists either. It would all be science fiction writers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Almost all of us would be so sick of the bullshit after a term or two would wouldn't try to get reelected. We'd actually like to return to a field where you can get something done and make forward progress.
It's all the assholes who spend 90% of the time in office pandering to their voter base and just trying to undo what the other guys did that are causing half of our problems.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Campus politics is the dirtiest and most underhanded. Because if you lose you have no cushy job to land on.
If you fail at campus politics you land at a Jr college, or worse high school.
Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score:4, Insightful)
So the politician is worried that the scientists are so politically motivated that they can't do good science?
Here, an apt quote from the Bible:
Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.
Matthew 7:5
Re: (Score:3)
The lack of scientists at this hearing would be of interest if the last time the House had a meeting about drug laws they had invited drug dealers. Or drug users.
Note, by the by, that the real reason no scientists were invited is that scientists don't contribute meaningful amounts to reelection campaigns....
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
The IRS is politically motivated, which is why the likes of Lois Learner are the ones protected by the AG office from any sort of investigation.
1) I heard about it first on the news
2) I am angry and will get to the bottom of this!
3) Not a Smidgeon of evidence (no investigation either looking for said evidence)
4) Nothing but a Phony scandal
5) Old news.
6) ???
7) Profit!
My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it. Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt, and say
Re:It's all politics, all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
My take on the whole thing, it is only a scandal with the OTHER side does it.
There is such a thing as a manufactured scandal. American politics is replete with them -- esp. conservative politics, which panders to a rather conspiratorial base.
Which is why I am a libertarian, both sides are corrupt
There is also a long well documented history of plutocrats using libertarian talking points to push their cronyism. It's an imperfect world.
Re:It's all politics, all the time (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, one side always thinks the other side is worse. Actually, both sides think that way. And that is how you know you're on one side or the other side.
Here is my question, which is worse? Deleting 18.5 minutes of audio recordings or erasing an entire email server used by the Secretary of State for Official Purposes?
Both are equally wrong. For the same reasons. One guy had to resign in shame, the other is running for president and proud of her accomplishments. Which side is worse? Meh, I can't hardly tell them apart.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm so tired of people make this ridiculous comparison.
President Nixon's attorney's admitted there was no innocent reason for the missing content on those tapes. It was done to hide incriminating actions.
Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws. She then deleted personal emails. She did nothing remotely wrong unless you believe that private citizens give up their right to private correspondence once they become government employees.
Re:It's all politics, all the time (Score:4, Interesting)
Ms. Clinton turned over every email as required under archiving laws.
No she didn't. You believe her for some reason, but there have been time periods found missing from the archives, and there is no way to verify what she deleted.
There are some people who are so blindly partisan that they will support Clinton in everything. Everyone else realizes that what she did was wrong.
Re: (Score:2)
Fox News becomes Fox Science.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, it makes sense.
If you were to hold a hearing on Police Abuse and its effect on the minority community, which you feel compelled to invite the Police to speak?
... Yes? Of course? Why in the hell would you not? Does an accused criminal not have the chance to defend themselves? Do you not want to fully understand the situation? (These days scientists are practically treated as criminals by some politicians).
Also invited to your party would the the minority community, experts in the field (sociologists, public health officials, other people who study this type of phenomenon) and anyone who would help provide a complete and thorough picture of the situation. O
Re: (Score:2)
Not during the Grand Jury hearing he doesn't. Which given the lack of any power that hearing has, is what the criminal equivalent would be.
Re: (Score:2)
If it involves the peoples money it's ALL political. Even when it shouldn't be.
Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, politicians and voters imagine themselves to be Canute, without understanding the moral of the story.
The real moral, of course, is that the Universe doesn't give a fuck about Congress, democracy, the GOP, the Democrats or the economy. It obeys specific laws that humans can harness and manipulate, but not change. Blaming scientists because some of their theories make people uncomfortable or because they challenge ideological, economic or political models is a pointless, futile exercise. The laws of physics owe humanity no favors.
Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score:4, Informative)
Yes, politicians and voters imagine themselves to be Canute, without understanding the moral of the story.
Canute has received an undeserved bad reputation.
He went to the seaside and ordered the tide to stop coming in. It didn't stop. However, he wasn't illustrating foolish hubris. He was tired of people in his court coming and asking him to make proclamations that weren't going to work. He really was saying "Look I'm only human and my decrees can't accomplish the impossible."
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Scientifically driven politics (Score:5, Informative)
I have to waste some mod points to give the reasons. The legislation bans consideration of research where all data is not publicly available without regard for which data is available - like public health studies with anonymized data [ucsusa.org].
This bill would make it impossible for the EPA to use many health studies, since they often contain private patient information that can’t and shouldn’t be revealed. Studies based on confidential business information would also be off-limits. Studies of human exposures to toxics over time and from a variety of locations likely cannot be reproduced. Neither can meta-analyses, looking at the results of hundreds of scientific studies to assess their conclusions. Such studies provide critical scientific evidence in many fields of research. This legislation wasn’t designed to promote good science—it was crafted to prevent public health and environmental laws from being enforced.
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think so. Mandating public policy to be based on publicly available science would for example end all and any teachings of "creationism" in schools.
It would also end faith-based politics like "trickle-down tax exemptions", facilities that allow companies to use overseas subsidiaries as tax shelters, H-1B v
Politically Driven Mansplanation (Score:5, Funny)
Let me tell y'all how this works, see. What goes up? It must come down. If factries sending it up? It comes down out in the ocean. Oceans make up 75% of the earth, right? Factries can't be doin nothin bad to all that, see? If so factries would need 75% of the earth's stuff to compete with all that water!
Now these here pencil necks keep talkin like they got sumpin ta say, confusing everyone and upsetting them over greenhouses and what not. But this has got to stop, my lil girl won't quit cryin over dead polar bears! I keeps sayin' "Polar bears ain't dyin, we got some in the zoo", but she won't stop cryin' and I can't take it anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
Let me tell y'all how this works, see. What goes up? It must come down.
Tell that to the Pioneer 10 spacecraft!
Re: (Score:2)
You mean the Tower of Babel?
it's all politics (Score:5, Insightful)
Impartiality (Score:2)
Not the point (Score:3)
Is anyone really surprised? (Score:5)
These next 2 years are going to be a nightmare of politically driven witch hunts against Science. They are also working to cut the NASA climate research budget; and I expect cuts in similar research done through DoD, USDA, National Science Foundation and others.
I can also see them killing off alternative energy programs, even research by the military so they can get more money from the Koch brothers and friends. Even though the military and intelligence communities have flagged climate change as a major security threat to the US, and the military would like to get away from oil based fuels as they were a major vulnerability in Afghanistan. Fuel convoys kept getting attacked.
They will do anything to line their pockets and torment those who do not conform to their dead of the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
errata: idea of the norm. not dead of the norm.
Re: (Score:2)
They are also working to cut the NASA climate research budget;
Not exactly accurate...they are trying to get this research done by NOAA, as it is the proper place. NASA is about flight/space, not about earth science, so they are trying to get the earth science people (NOAA) to do most of the work/paying, not NASA.
Re:Is anyone really surprised? (Score:4, Informative)
NASA is about flight/space, not about earth science
NASA's mission-statement used to include earth science (in the context of aeronautical and space platforms.) That changed in February 2006, during the Bush administration. [ucsusa.org]
Just Like the "Liberal Media" (Score:5, Insightful)
Growing up in the 80s, all I heard was how liberal the media was and how we had to fight against it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point that they repeated ad infinitum until people stopped questioning it and just assumed it was true.
The same thing is happening now with claiming scientists are politically or monetarily motivated (the conservative machine hasn't settled on which script to stick with).
Look, I'm a scientist. I know scientists. I know scientists at NOAA, NCAR, NIST, the Labs, in academia, in industry, at biotechs, at agri-science companies, at space exploration companies, and at oil and gas companies. I know conservative scientists, liberal scientists, agnostic scientists, religious scientists, and hedonistic scientists.
You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego. If someone doesn't love science, there's no way they can cut it as a scientist. There are no political or monetary rewards available to scientists in the same way they're available to lawyers and lobbyists.
Science if hard work for little pay and possibly some recognition. Unfortunately, the conservative noise machine is slowly building a narrative that scientists are all politically and monetarily motivated. The public doesn't really know any better and will believe this to be true if they hear it enough.
This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.
-Chris
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media" (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
No, sorry, *everyone* is a political actor. Politicians are people whose primary focus is being a political actor, and - in the same way as the engineers and scientists on
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
There's also the "intellectual elite" term that's bandied about.
How dare those climatologists tell us what is going on with the Earth's climate! They think they're so smart because they studied climate systems for years, can make a model of the entire Earth's climate system, and can compare its predictions against past and current data points. Well, why should those "intellectual elite" climatologists get to say what's going on with the Earth's climate? I stepped outside the other day and it was chilly s
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
It is easy to say science isn't political, however it is political if you want government funding.
I want research that says X, I get my buddies in the Y party to create a funding bill for research that says X. I can create science that says X, and get more funding, therefore I say X. If I say not X, I don't get any more funding, and have to find a new job flipping hamburgers at McD's.
Science isn't political ... noooooo
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.
It's actually a welcome and necessary step towards outlawing all science and removing all scientists from society.
There simply can be no room for these secular infidels in a God fearing nation that values God.
Remember your Bible people: Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live -- Exodus 22:18 KJV
And what is a "scientist" but a modern form of witch or sorcerer? Conjuring up "particles" from thin air?!? Creating magical "cures" that remove the afflictions God almighty places upon sinners? Pure Devilry!
Re: (Score:2)
I'd beg to differ, as there was a long and fruitful conversation on quora about exactly this.
I read through at least the first 20 replies, and they're quite good.*
http://www.quora.com/Why-do-sc... [quora.com]
Not to mention that the idea that scientists are strongly liberal is supported by ample statistical evidence (one example at http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.c... [nytimes.com] - Paul Krugman is hardly the mouthpiece of the GOP).
*let me be clear, I love science and hard science fiction, I think creationism is mythological poppycock,
Re:Just Like the "Liberal Media" (Score:5, Informative)
I'd only add one point further: as much as Ike's prescient warning about the military-industrial complex is quoted ad nauseum, what is much less-often quoted is his comments immediately following that bit...
Re: (Score:3)
Growing up in the 80s, all I heard was how liberal the media was and how we had to fight against it. Now, with the benefit of hindsight, it's clear that the phrase "liberal media" was a conservative talking point that they repeated ad infinitum until people stopped questioning it and just assumed it was true.
The same thing is happening now with claiming scientists are politically or monetarily motivated (the conservative machine hasn't settled on which script to stick with).
Look, I'm a scientist. I know scientists. I know scientists at NOAA, NCAR, NIST, the Labs, in academia, in industry, at biotechs, at agri-science companies, at space exploration companies, and at oil and gas companies. I know conservative scientists, liberal scientists, agnostic scientists, religious scientists, and hedonistic scientists.
You know what motivates scientists? Science. And to a lesser extent, their ego. If someone doesn't love science, there's no way they can cut it as a scientist. There are no political or monetary rewards available to scientists in the same way they're available to lawyers and lobbyists.
Science if hard work for little pay and possibly some recognition. Unfortunately, the conservative noise machine is slowly building a narrative that scientists are all politically and monetarily motivated. The public doesn't really know any better and will believe this to be true if they hear it enough.
This attempt to paint scientists as political actors is pure bullshit and demeans the hard work and great sacrifices working scientists make every day.
-Chris
Victor Venema on his blog Variable Variability has a post on the House Science Committee's gutting of NASA's earth sciences programs. [blogspot.com] In it he wrote this (my emphasis):
Science is a free market of ideas. Like the free market uses distributed information on how to efficiently organize an economy, science is highly distributed and cannot be controlled from the top. Every researcher is a small entrepreneur, trying to search for problems that are interesting and solvable. Science is organized in small groups. If your group does not function, you'd better get out before your reputation and publication record suffer. Multiple such groups are at one university or research institute. In one country you will find many universities and institutes. All these groups in many countries are all competing and collaborating with each other. Competing for the best ideas, because it is fun and get more possibilities to do research. The currency is reputation.
Most scientists don't care that much about money. It is just a means to the end of doing more and better science. If they really cared about money that much they'd be working in finance or something like that. Assuming most scientists are in it for the money probably says more about your motivations being projected on them than anything e
Re: (Score:3)
I fucking hate it when some doosh politician, lawyer, or communications major type keeps bringing up how profit motive makes everyone tick.
They've basicly projected their own greed and psychopathic tendencies on everyone else.
Tit for tat (Score:3)
I encourage scientists* to follow up with studies of politically-driven politics. Without involving any politicians, of course.
*Social scientists, I suppose, but that's better than nothing ;)
The demonization of intelectuals (Score:5, Insightful)
.. Is an old, old, old page out of the tyranny handbook.
Re: (Score:3)
This.
The obvious examples from history are of course extreme, but worth noting: the excesses of Stalin, the purges of the Chinese Cultural Revolution, the prosecution of scientists (and others) by the Inquisition, and so on.
Once again, it's about control (Score:2)
Emphasis mine.
Riding Rough Shot.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Hey Louie! (Score:4, Insightful)
First Among Equals (Score:4, Informative)
In a deliberative body that's chock-full of dumb sonsabitches, Louis Gohmert stands head and shoulders above them all.
Here's my favorite Louis Gohmert quote.
On gays in the military:
Want another?
Regarding caribou and the oil pipeline:
Re: (Score:3)
"He's not just a regular moron. He's the product of the greatest minds of a generation working together with the express purpose of building the dumbest moron who ever lived."
As they should... (Score:3)
Politically driven "science" is what Republicans excel at, so investigating themselves is exactly what they *should* be doing.
Yeah, sounds about right... (Score:3)
"Notably absent, however, were any scientists"
Sounds like the GOP's ideal version of "science" these days... the climate, abortion, you name it, they'll substitute Moms, Businessmen, and the Clearly Insane for actual scientists in any science discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Your Mom and I forgive you. :-)
Just like Women's Health (Score:5, Informative)
I believe the house once held a committee on Women's Health issues, particularly abortion. Notably absent were any women.
Irony? (Score:3)
Irony is dead.
Double Standard? (Score:3)
And politicians, corporations, and the wealthy have NOT?
Let's not have a double standard here. If we are going to hunt down bias, hunt down ALL bias.
Orwellian (Score:4, Insightful)
You have to understand that when he says things like "politically driven science" he is intending, not to communicate, but to bamboozle and deceive. This has been pointed out before:
(Politics and the English Language, 1946.)
It used to be (Score:4, Insightful)
It used to be that at one time, republicans believed in the importance of science to inform them and make for a better world and ensure America's preeminence in the world. Now, republicans hate science as it is the bearer of bad news, namely that republicans are bad for the environment, the long term technological security of the country, and for social progress.
It used to be that the accused were entitled to stand before their accusers to rebut their accusations. In modern republican America this right is being taken away because republicans find it politically convenient.
Sadly, it looks as if this trend will continue until global warming gets so bad that no one will be able to live in Victoria, Texas and consequently, won't be able to vote for Louis Gohmert, who seems intent on killing the messenger of the bad news rather than addressing the problem.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not the country, it's the federal government.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Its not the X party, it is the Y party (where X and Y are the two major parties, and interchangeable)
Re: (Score:2)
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra
So you are saying you are one of those deniers? Otherwise why would you want climate change to be abandoned?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
When greater than 95% of experts agree, trying to turn it into a liberal/conservative position is spin.
That said, defining the problem should not dictate the solution, any more than disagreeing with a proposed solution should be just cause for denying the problem.
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:4, Informative)
Nice spin.... how about this: Since there are so many people who do deny it, why not take a different approach that would accomplish the same thing without making Al Gore even more wealthy?
I don't see what Al Gore has to do with it.
The problem with focusing on air and water quality is CO2 only becomes a major concern in the context of climate change. You could try talking about ocean acidification which is another side effect but I don't think ignoring the elephant smashing everything in the room that is climate change is the best strategy.
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
I think his point is that the Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of. Liberals say climate change is real and we've got to combat it? Well, obviously, it is false and we need to investigate anyone who says it is true. You've got to wonder if Obama released a statement that read "I like puppies. They're cute.", how quickly would Republicans line up to declare that puppies are evil spawns of Satan and real Americans own cats, not dogs.
The problem with stating that liberals should stop pushing fighting against climate change - targeting clean air/water instead - in the hopes that the Republicans would drop their objections and things would get done is that the Republicans in power have a lot invested in "things are good as-is." Plus, once liberals start decrying polluted air/water, the Republican leadership would reflexively declare all water/air to be 100% clean and would cut EPA funding to match their declaration.
Re: (Score:2)
You've got to wonder if Obama released a statement that read "I like puppies. They're cute.", how quickly would Republicans line up to declare that puppies are evil spawns of Satan and real Americans own cats, not dogs.
Personally, I think dogs are a pain in the ass and it annoys me how dogs are generally favored as pets, so I really wish Obama would do exactly this.
Then again, this probably isn't a good idea: then all the Democrat voters will suddenly be dog lovers (because they'll support anything the Demo
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Funny)
Personally, I think dogs are a pain in the ass and it annoys me how dogs are generally favored as pets
Every time you pet a cat the terrorists win, why do you hate America?
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of.
There's a lot of that going around, for sure, but the real issue is that science always has the potential of being disruptive to established economic interests. Whether it's Big Tobacco or fossil carbon, those interests are paying the GOP serious money for protection against these kinds of disruptions.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
I think his point is that the Republicans in power seems to be reflexively against anything "those liberals" are in favor of.
I know what you mean, there have been several times now that I've been sorely tempted to point out to them that liberals are very much in favour of breathing. Each timeI decided not to because I didn't think we could bury that many bodies quickly enough to prevent the spread of pandemics.
Re: (Score:2)
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra
So you are saying you are one of those deniers?
No, reread his post, he's talking about FOCUS. Climate change is an argument; "Stop poisoning our children through the water we drink" should be a slam-dunk. See the New Yorker article suggesting similarly that the hugeness of climate change has had a negative impact on conservation efforts. After all, the feeling seems to be, if the world is going to end, why worry about lesser things? http://www.newyorker.com/magaz... [newyorker.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
Liberals wanted hard limits on CO2 emissions, no exceptions. Credits were a conservative-proposed, market-based alternative. Liberals weren't that fond of the idea--allowing swaps makes it more difficult to pinpoint violations and takes longer to hit the desired total CO2 decreases--but it had bipartisan support so could actually be enacted, and would make a measurable improvement. So we agreed that it was an acceptable compromise. At which point conservative politicians and their owners and media outlets howled that CO2 credits were the worst socialist plot since Red October, and the goalpost shifted again.
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Which is ironic, since both the Clean Water Act and the EPA were established by Richard Nixon. There's really no reason economic conservatives should also be socially conservative and anti-environment, and yet...
Save the GOP; Save the Elephants (Score:5, Interesting)
I'm still registered as a Republican and I agree with this. Many years ago, when my daughter was little, I remember her picking up a discarded coke can and placing it in a trash bin at the park. A young man standing nearby said, in the kind of patronizing voice that some people use with children, "Yes, people should learn to recycle." I responded, "I would settle for them just throwning away their trash properly." My point being, that teaching recycling while people are just tossing trash around is putting the cart before the horse. Twenty years down the road, and the situation is worse than ever. I have actually witnessed people just open their car window and toss out the McDonald's bag without even slowing down. How can you expect people to understand something as complex as global warming when you can't even get them to put their garbage in the trash can?
Maybe a good start is to show Republicans that their vaunted mascot for their party, the elephant, is going extinct. They might deny global warming, but it's pretty hard for them to deny the fact that elephants are disappearing from the planet, mainly due to people. Maybe we could get them to see the disappearance of the elephants as a harbinger of their own loss of popularity. Perhaps if we could get the GOP to save their pachyderms, they could learn something important in the process.
Re: (Score:3)
It's fairly easy to prove that we are poisoning everything.
Except this doesn't matter. There are people who think that since Jesus is coming back any day now anyway, working to save the environment is pointless.
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Informative)
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality.
Depending on the media you consume you may not know this. About 50% of conservatives willing accept AGW if presented with free-market solutions. About 90% of liberals don't care if the solution is free-market or government -- they just want a solution.
You may find this short video interesting [youtube.com].
Re:I am a Republican voting Conservative. (Score:5, Insightful)
I do see the need to stop polluting our water, air and land.
This whole thing reminds me of the entire "Lead in Gasoline" fight back in the 60's.
I wish liberals would abandon the "climate change" mantra and focus on air and water quality. It's fairly easy to prove that we are poisoning everything.
Why do "liberals" have to "abandon the climate change mantra" to do something about air and water quality? Can't "conservatives" do something about air and water for their own reasons? Howabout a clean air and water bill, bi-partisan, the "conservatives" support it because we are "poisoning everything" and "liberals" support it because of "climate change". There. Bill passed, clean air and water, and Richard Nixon smiles in his grave. Everybody wins.
Except, THAT WOULD SUCK, because if Republicans vote with Democrats, Republicans might jeopardize their precious "brand" of being against all things liberal, and then voters might get confused, not give as much of a shit at the next election from one party to the other, and those safe majorities might not be so safe anymore. Furthermore, the ultra-libertarians in the Tea Party wing will attack the incumbents in the Primaries, claiming that the new regulation for protecting clean air and water is evil, liberal, communist, twinkle-toed Kenyan-Muslim interference on one's God-given right to pour shit all over your own land if you damn-well want to. And, of course, who's going to PAY for your clean air and water? Regulators, agents, inspectors, prosecutors, none of them work for free! Our Lord Grover Norquist will not permit any new taxes for yet more wasteful government spending!
Nope, too risky. New election cycle coming up. Gotta keep up the pressure, and cooperation doesn't do any good for anybody.
On the other hand, making friends with big industrial polluters yields nice election contributions, which pays for TV, radio, and print ads to whip up rage and FUD against the other Party, at least until election day.
Clean air and water? Not this year. Not next year either. In fact, never so long as it might validate those foul godless liberals and that *spit* asshat Al Gore with his "climate change" bullshit.
But thanks for your vote.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The US is really good at messing with about everything they touch. Maybe take it a step back, guys.
I'd prefer my arm in one piece thanks
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite your evidence for this assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
I would love to see science just be ... you know, science. And I would accept any conclusions drawn therefrom, whether I liked them or not. (For instance, I may not "like" the law of gravity, because it means I can't fly off tall buildings, but I have no choice but to accept it.)
Science tainted with politics or political correctness is harder to trust. By the way, I mean this from any angle. In the specific instance of climate change, there are agendas on both sides.
In fact the problem is that there shouldn
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Please cite evidence to back up your assertion.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:government science = more money gravy train (Score:5, Insightful)
There's no nice way to put this: You are totally fucking stupid.
You have no idea how much dedicated scientists get paid (damn little, especially when you consider the education required to become one). Or how much actual work is involved (a huge amount, one that only someone truly dedicated to their field could ever possibly tolerate).
I know this because I came extremely close to heading back to grad school for a Ph.D., and I would have taken an 85% pay cut for the privilege (for a minimum of four years). And those I know who did take the plunge, got the three letters, endured the low-paying post-doc fellowship, and managed to latch onto an associate professorship.. got very tired very quickly. Tired of hustling for whatever precious grant money they could, and not doing the work they were trained to do, and left academia altogether.
So, Sparky, I would strongly recommend turning off Fox News, leaving your trailer, and enjoying some fresh air.
government science != more money gravy train (Score:5, Insightful)
I am one of those scientists (well, engineer actually these days), and I can say that you've got this pretty far backwards. I am an assistant professor, which means I have 6 years to prove my worth to my university. Part of that proof is that I must raise grants and fund grad students through a Ph.D. program. In fact, grad student support is the bulk of what I request in my grant applications -- my own salary is paid by tuition and legislative appropriations (I do teach classes too after all). But raising grants is currently nearly impossible.
I work on concrete solutions to climate change (e.g., studying how much wind and solar power we can use without cheap storage, or designing home appliances and electric vehicle chargers that can synchronize their demand with the supply of renewable power). Even in these "hot" areas, the funding rate for grant proposals is about 3%. Each proposal takes about a month of intense thinking, writing and document-chasing. Everyone competing for these grants has a Ph.D. from a top school, and the external review process is incredibly rigorous. So I would not call this a gravy train. I do this work because I think that humanity is on a reckless and destructive path, digging up hundreds of millions of years worth of accumulated carbon and poofing it into the atmosphere in 100 years, and because I think we can do better. If I wanted the gravy train, I'd be at Google or Microsoft or Facebook, not writing NSF grant proposals.
Re:The thankless job of solving nonexisting proble (Score:5, Insightful)
The people doing this work are scientists. That means they work with probabilistic uncertainty bands, not vague measures like "within 80% of the predicted value". They also recognize that you can't make short-term predictions of a noisy system (the Earth's weather) with a narrow uncertainty band. So if anything they have erred on the side of making cautious forecasts -- i.e., things are turning out worse than the thresholds that scientists were willing to go public with (i.e., the lower edge of the 95% uncertainty band around anyone's forecast for a particular year's temperatures will be significantly cooler than their central estimate).
Because of this, no one would have been willing to predict (with high degree of certainty) that 13 of the warmest years since 1880 would occur in 2000-2014. But they have [climatecentral.org].
I challenge you to show me any global climate model that predicts that doubling CO2 concentrations won't warm the planet, or that shows that we would have had this century's steady increase in temperatures even if we hadn't increased CO2 concentrations. You can pretend there is no connection between CO2 and temperature, but you are the one burying your head in the sand.
Re: (Score:3)
I have to admit, you seem to have put allot of thought into that one.
However, it doesn't really change anything.
If CO2 was the main driver of temperature, as it steadily increases, there is no way there would be no effect for almost 18 years.
Now before you go calling me names (maybe your not that type, and I apologies in advance), I don't deny that CO2 does contribute to rising temperatures. However, we seem to have all lost our marbles and completely forgotten natural variations, as if they do not exists.
I
Re: (Score:3)
You might also want to take a look at this post [realclimate.org] (just came across it with a quick search), which notes that a mainstream projection (in Science Magazine) in 1981 has come in very close to actual warming, but a little lower. Or you could look at this post [theconversation.com] or this post [newscientist.com] about projections made in 1990 and 1999 which are also coming out right.
More fundamentally, I'd ask you to take a look at the basics of atmospheric modeling, and point out where you think the mainstream models are wrong. You could start with th
Re: (Score:3)
My point was that academia is no gravy train, and people who believe academics are feathering their nests by peddling climate fear are living in a fantasy world. It takes an incredible amount of intelligence and dedication to succeed in one of these fields, and the people studying climate all have easier, more lucrative options open to them elsewhere.They do this work because they believe in it, just as you do your work because you believe in it (I hope). Sometimes there can be academic pissing matches, but
Re: (Score:2)
That makes little sense. If money is what you're after, the very LAST thing you should do it try to dig into climate change. Let alone finding proof for it. If money is what you want, you should slap together some research in a field that is under less scrutiny and where there are bigger stakeholders willing to pump money your way as long as you prove them right. Genetically altered crops, and how safe they are would be a great field. Less controversy and big players with deep pockets that would certainly l