Meta-Blog

SEARCH QandO

Email:
Jon Henke
Bruce "McQ" McQuain
Dale Franks
Bryan Pick
Billy Hollis
Lance Paddock
MichaelW

BLOGROLL QandO

 
 
Recent Posts
The Ayers Resurrection Tour
Special Friends Get Special Breaks
One Hour
The Hope and Change Express - stalled in the slow lane
Michael Steele New RNC Chairman
Things that make you go "hmmmm"...
Oh yeah, that "rule of law" thing ...
Putting Dollar Signs in Front Of The AGW Hoax
Moving toward a 60 vote majority?
Do As I Say ....
 
 
QandO Newsroom

Newsroom Home Page

US News

US National News
Politics
Business
Science
Technology
Health
Entertainment
Sports
Opinion/Editorial

International News

Top World New
Iraq News
Mideast Conflict

Blogging

Blogpulse Daily Highlights
Daypop Top 40 Links

Regional

Regional News

Publications

News Publications

 
The "new" science, same as the old science
Posted by: McQ on Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Obama claims he will "free" science from "politics or ideology":
Barack Obama yesterday promised to end George Bush's "twisting" of science to suit "politics or ideology" in an extraordinarily outspoken address to the nation, and announced that he was putting top climate scientists in key positions in his administration.
Does anyone else find irony in the statement above, given the fact that more and more scientists are now voicing open skepticism concerning man-made global warming?
But in his weekly radio address, Mr Obama pointedly promised to end this. "Promoting science is about free and open inquiry," he said. "It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology. It's about listening to what our scientists have to say, even when it's inconvenient – especially when it's inconvenient. That will be my goal as president of the United States."
This from the same guy who has claimed "the science is beyond dispute and the facts are clear" when it comes to AGW. But of course the science isn't at all beyond dispute and in fact, that dispute is increasing. Additionally the facts, as presented by the AGW crowd, seem to be suffering a massive loss of credibility. So here's another area where we can watch how true to his words Obama actually stays. My guess is we'll see just as much ideological and/or political "twisting" taking place under an Obama administration hungry for cap-and-traded dollars as anything the Bush administration was accused of.
 
TrackBacks
Return to Main Blog Page
 
 

Previous Comments to this Post 

Comments
And off course they turn out to be massive hypocrites.
What’s your carbon footprint? Next year, it will probably be much smaller than that of Jane Lubchenco. The renowned climate-change crusader and professor of marine biology is Obama’s choice for administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA).
In the e-mail, Menge is enthusiastic about the appointment, but he also mentions the “the hardships it will impose on us and our academic family.” Their solution? “The plan is for her to be in WDC and me to remain in Oregon at OSU, with frequent weekend trips back and forth,” Menge writes. For the record: A single roundtrip between Portland, Ore., and Washington, D.C., emits just under a ton of carbon, and a bit more than a ton if there is a layover in between. The roundtrip from the university to the airport is another 185 miles by car.
I guess that reduction is just for the little people.

Leftists make me sick.
 
Written By: capt joe
URL: http://
Didn’t Al Gore win the Nobel Peace Prize? That is the highest award for politics, not science. Climatology and Geology are included under the category of Physics. Al Gore, the IPCC and the Nobel Committee are the ones who made climate science a political issue, not the critics of AGW.

Next up, Yale professor Peter Moore is about to be nominated for the Nobel Prize in Classical Literature for his work on peptidyl-transferase reactions and tRNA decoding of eukaryotic ribosomes in vivo.
 
Written By: James D
URL: http://
When it comes to statements from The Clown™, they are 85% horsecrappola, 18% fudging of the truth, and 8% politics as usual.

And they say that he will bring "change" and "hope." Actually, he is bringing along the same old baggage we got from Democrats since FDR: hopeydopey change that in the end means scandal and ruin.
 
Written By: James Marsden
URL: http://
Global warming??? More like the beggining of the new Ice Age!

http://www.politicalsimpleton.com
 
Written By: Bill
URL: http://www.politicalsimpleton.com/
Gradually, the skeptics’ case that AGW is poppycock, if it is not an outright hoax, has been building to the point where politics and only politics (which includes the media as political enforcer) can keep it from being heard.

And when it is heard the Warmist case is going to explode. There are some people, like this character Hansen at NASA, who need to be held to account for the billions of dollars wasted already. Bernard Madoff is an amateur by comparison to the Warmist outfit.
 
Written By: Martin McPhillips
URL: http://newpaltzjournal.com
Does anyone else find irony in the statement above, given the fact that more and more scientists are now voicing open skepticism concerning man-made global warming?
Well, that, and the guys out in front of Babs Streisand’s place in Malibu, shoveling snow, yes.

 
Written By: Bithead
URL: http://bitsblog.florack.us
If Global Warming gets any worse, we’ll all freeze to death.
 
Written By: jjmurphy
URL: http://www.allthatisnecessary.com
Of course, Bush was actually RIGHT about his stance on embryonic stem cells goes over everyones head

Even Twitchy (er, I mean Michael J Fox) puts his foundation’s money into adult stem cells
 
Written By: shark
URL: http://
Does being spectacularly wrong about a major issue in your field of expertise hurt your chances of becoming the presidential science advisor? Apparently not, judging by reports from DotEarth and ScienceInsider that Barack Obama will name John P. Holdren as his science advisor on Saturday.
Flawed Science Advice for Obama?
This is from the NY Times! And Holdren is the science advisor whom Obama has chosen.

Holdren was the expert Paul Ehrlich turned to in his ill-fated bet against Julian Simon that commodities would become more expensive in the future. Holdren also helped lead the charge in Scientific American against Bjorn Lomborg over the latter’s book, The Skeptical Environmentalist. That was when I realized that scientists were not to be relied upon for objectivity when science and politics overlap.
 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
.. but everybody knows that PI = 22 / 7
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Huxley, I read that article and came away with a couple thoughts. First was that being wrong doesn’t necessarily make someone a bad scientist. Indeed, several posters spoke up to say that this guy Holdren will quickly acknowledge when he’s wrong. Good on him.

HOWEVER, he did put a lot of money on this bet — it wasn’t really a gentleman’s bet, so it’s safe (in my opinion) to conclude that he was absolutely sure of his correctness in this bet. I could be wrong, but this doesn’t invalidate my subsequent point. Many posters were quick to point out that he lost the bet for reasons beyond his control. This is true — supply/demand for metal isn’t static, as extraction processes, use, etc. will change over the course of time. Holdren, who I think we can all assume is indeed an intelligent man, failed to consider ANY of these externalities in his infamous bet. He may be the most honest and intelligent man, but while he focused on the one aspect he did understand (the "science") he ignored the surrounding reality.

This, in a nutshell, is the premier reason why science should not be politicized. You have individuals who are abso-frickin-lutely brilliant in their niche. What some of the more arrogant fail to realize though, is that their niche is but one cranny in a bag of english muffins. They cannot extrapolate their knowledge to the universe and hope to be correct, as the Holdren bet proves. Sadly, the response of many posters to this failing (analogous to AGW supporters) is to downplay and explain away the wrongness as insignificant — "the only reason he was wrong is because he’s not an economist" (!). If he is a physicist, then what the hell is he doing waging five $1000 (sum = $12500 in 2007) bets on something he isn’t qualified for!?!

For the love of all things, I beg scientists to remain objective and do what they do best: science, not advocacy. It is for this same reason that I beg all those who look to scientists for answers: respect the objectivity and do not advocate on one side versus another. I do not know Holdren and cannot say whether he would make a good advisor. I will say, however, that some of the best scientists I have met practice with a healthy respect for ignorance — they understand that they do not know everything.
 
Written By: calvaria
URL: http://
"Cap n Trade" may go the way of Indiana House Bill #246.
 
Written By: Neo
URL: http://
Love him? Hate him? How do YOU feel about our soon to be former President? Take part in a chance to immortalize your views in book form by visiting http://goodbyegeorgew.com/ and letting your opinion be read!



Check out the following article about goodbyegeorgew.com/:

http://www.prlog.org/10153466.html
 
Written By: Kyle
URL: http://goodbyegeorgew.com/
calvaria — I followed the Simon bet and the Lomborg affair while they were going on.

At one time I was much impressed with Paul Ehrlich and persuaded that we were looking at mass starvation and eco-catastrophe by 1990. I was pleasantly surprised that instead the world headed into an astonishing era of prosperity with even some environmental gains.

Ehrlich is still betting on apocalypse; he just fudges the time scale, as necessary.

Unfortunately, Holdren’s Lomborg article is behind a fee wall at SciAm. I read all four of the articles, including Holdren’s, excoriating Lomborg and they broke my heart. I had loved SciAm since I was a teenager, and those articles were arrogant, dishonest and snide polemics.


 
Written By: huxley
URL: http://
Barack Obama yesterday promised to end George Bush’s "twisting" of science to suit "politics or ideology"...
Via Ace:
Scientist Fired by Al Gore Over Global Warming Skepticism; Says Al Gore Told Him, "Science Will Not Intrude on Public Policy"
George Bush? Yeah, OK if you say so.
 
Written By: tom scott
URL: http://
if cap and trade is implemented i wonder how cold it has to get before there is an outright rebellion by the people?
 
Written By: mac
URL: http://
Wow, I never knew that The "new" science, same as the old science . That’s pretty interesting...
 
Written By: press release distribution
URL: http://www.ereleases.com

 
Add Your Comment
  NOTICE: While we don't wish to censor your thoughts, we do blacklist certain terms of profanity or obscenity. This is not to muzzle you, but to ensure that the blog remains work-safe for our readers. If you wish to use profanity, simply insert asterisks (*) where the vowels usually go. Your meaning will still be clear, but our readers will be able to view the blog without worrying that content monitoring will get them in trouble when reading it.
Comments for this entry are closed.
Name:
Email:
URL:
HTML Tools:
Bold Italic Blockquote Hyperlink
Comment:
   
 
Vicious Capitalism

Divider

Buy Dale's Book!
Slackernomics by Dale Franks

Divider

Divider