Science and technology are probably going to be the driving forces that lift us out of the economic hole we’re in. The Obama campaign had an entire science advisory team that included two Nobel laureates, Harold Varmus and Peter Agre. The McCain campaign did not have a dedicated science adviser. Future Republican presidential candidates: come to the clean energy–powered, low-wattage, high-lumen light. It beats cursing the darkness.
Note: This article was originally printed with the title, "Flies and Projectors and Bears, Oh My".
Subscribe
Buy This Issue
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
68 Comments
Add CommentThe question Mr. Mirsky fails to answer is why an industry with a retail value of $85 million deserves a $211,000 transfer payment from taxpayers. The beneficiaries of such money often dress it up as an "investment." Anyone with business savy knows that such "investments" are, in reality, examples of the truth of Bastiat's observation: "The state is that great fiction through which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo mention of the Obama campaign's dubious claims, like ending our dependence on foreign energy by properly inflating our car tires and getting regular tuneups? I am an avid SciAm reader, but the magazine would do well to stay away from taking sides in politics. The Left abuses and misrepresents scientific data just as often as the Right. Take the extremely dubious claims of man made global warming, for example. How about an article examining each of the counterclaims to man made global warming in Lawrence Solomon's "Deniers". Now THAT would be interesting reading...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is nothing positive to say about the benrast comment. And while Bastiat found more negative than positive in government (or The State), he quite possibly would support the roll of government in cases such as this where the benefit to the people can be clearly demonstrated.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt does appear that the republican party (generalizing, of course not EVERYONE in it) does not like science or higher education. As if if it can not be explained in 30 seconds, it is not worth knowing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn the Bush administration science was ignored when findings were contrary to the party line and, even more disturbing, scientific findings were rewritten or slanted to support reactionary ideology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience is incompatible w juvenile democracy - the current system in the U.S. JD depends on the 4 P's: Propaganda, Pandering and Purchase, all run by Party.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want better science, get a better (more rational) system.
Just because someone identifies merit in an activity doesn't mean that the U.S. taxpayer has to fund it. In the real world, not everything that people want to be funded can be funded (that is what is known as "economics"). If McCain and Palin were smart, and they obviously aren't, what they should have said, instead of how dumb these programs were, was what the government was not able to do in lieu of funding those particular programs (i.e. fed the poor, repaved a highway). But obviously, the author of the article isn't aware of economics, because he probably thinks the government can pay for everything. Increased debt, and all of its implications, appears to be the furthest thing from his mind. Sorry, is this "Scientific American" or is it "Political American"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(That attempt at humor went over like an iridium balloon, which is denser than a lead balloon.)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat just slays me. Not only in its nerdiness, but the fact it's almost like a recursively lame joke.
I'd remind bconley that during the last election, when asked "Who doesn't believe in evolution," three of the Republican candidates raised their hands. This is a jaw-dropping insight into the mentality and ignorance of the modern-day GOP and you'll have a hard time convincing me that Obama's silly tire-inflation idea even compares.
As a European with good friends in the States, I wonder how it is remotely possible that someone who seriously nurtures a Flintstones vision of prehistory could actually run for the office of Vice-President? Always bearing in mind, of course, that such a person could potentially inherit the highest office and become the most powerful person in the free world.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor his sins against science -- in particular, his demagoguery on the Adler planetarium's "overhead projector" -- perhaps Sen. McCain should be relieved of his role on the Space committee? He ran a very shameful campaign.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCorrection: Make that the Commerce, Science and Transportation Committee, which includes oversight of many space activities.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou cannot tell me the public does not gain more than it loses from a $211,000 investment that serves to help preserve an $85 million industry.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to play the definitions game, I think Ambrose Bierce's "Devil's Dictionary" definition of a 'corporation' is very timely: "An ingenious device for obtaining individual profit without individual responsibility."
Of course Obama never said any such thing. At most, he has talked about ending our dependence of Middle East oil, not ALL foreign oil.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDon't forget Sarah Palin's dismissal of the findings of her own Alaska scientists, who determined that the polar bear was threatened by the dramatic loss of its habitat due to global warming.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI don't defend the Republicans who claim not to believe in evolution, although I seriously doubt their sincerity. Just as liberals claim to support such anti-democratic concepts as "card check" during the campaign as a sop to Big Labor, and then reneg after the election (witness the current backpeddling of Democrats on this issue), Republicans play to the extreme elements of their party, particularly in the primaries. The sin of the Republican candidates, it would seem, is to pander to the religious wing of their party. This, it should be noted, is a non-issue for Democrats. As an avowed athiest, I am not in least concerned by some Republicans' belief in intelligent design versus evolution. The practicle effect of their religious beliefs, if they are indeed sincere, are minimal. The effect of their positions on tax policy, capitalism and national defense are far more consequential to this voter.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisContrary to the widely held public perception that polar bears are threatened as a result of global warming, the population of polar bears has never been higher. Regardless, *if* the planet is in fact on a long term warming trend (never mind that it has cooled slightly since 1998 or that both sea levels and temperatures have actually declined slightly in the past couple of years, an odd thing to occur with ever-increasing levels of CO2), that does not mean said warming is caused by human activity. The earth has been both dramatically warmer and cooler than at present, long before carbon-spewing SUVs roamed the planet. Where I live in the Mid-Atlantic used to be hundreds of feet below glacial ice - where was Al Gore when the glaciers covering half of the US retreated deep into Canada? But, of course, that was long before there was billions of dollars in government funding for "climate research", carbon credits to sell or Nobel Prizes to win. The so-called "scientific consensus" on man made global warming is a ridiculous fraud. "Science" and "consensus" should never occur in the same sentence. Recall that the scientific "consensus" was once that the Sun revolved around the Earth, much to the chargin of Galileo and others who dared to question the prevailing orthodoxy. Your tune will change once $7 trillion (yes, trillion with a "t") is transferred from our pockets to Congress's favorite interest groups via cap-n-trade and/or carbon taxes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo bconley99: The problem is the anti-science stance of many Republicans, and I believe we are seeing the practical results of their policies. Specificallly, we have seen the failures of their faith-based approach to tax policy, capitalism, and national defense. And unlike you, I don't equate being religious with being anti-science.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo bconley99: Unfortunately, you are not telling the whole story about polar bears. Yes, some populations are up, compared to a time when they were over-harvested. But this does not mean that sea ice is not disappearing at an alarming rate, reducing seal populations and, in turn, bear populations. This is what the science reveals. Please see http://www.polarbearsinternational.org/ask-the-experts/population/.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso, I believe Galileo's problem was that he challenged religious orthodoxy. And I believe some ancient Greek scientists had already determined that the Earth revolved around the sun before Galileo looked through his telescope.
It might be worthwhile for ambertooth, the European with good friends in the States, to spend a few months traveling throughout the United States, especially away from the coasts, to familiarize himself with the less-educated America, the 95% who have no passports and who are quite mistrustful of those who are "different," such as the highly-intelligent, highly-educated, rationally thinking, deductive reasoning, well-spoken, refined, egalitarian, foreign, or in any way, "not your typical," American. He would find that those who have a post-Flintstones vision of prehistory, are not a large majority, and are, because of their usual restraint, are at risk of becoming a berated minority. America is in danger of becoming a victim of a cultural disorder, the result of a growing contempt for liberal education, that usually produces isolationism and wars or Crusaderism and wars. The antidote, a mandated, advanced, liberal education for all, will take 20 to 40 years to work. So stay tuned as the American form of Democracy hits theatres near you.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat does a funding a locally used planetarium projector with federal funds have to do with environmental science, the topic this section is supposed to deal with? Nothing, except that cultural Marxism and environmentalism, being indistinguishable - qualifies hit pieces on the Right as scientific reporting. This "report" belongs on an op-ed page.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is fascinating that you denigrate republicans as single minded individuals who can't seem to hold their concentration for more than 30 seconds, when you make a fifteen second statement without any rational argument or basis. First look to yourself, then to others.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn response to Hisboyelroy... With all due respect, what in the world is a faith-based approach to tax policy? For that matter, what is a faith-based approach to capitalism? It would appear that you view everything through a single, very narrow, frame of reference - i.e. that Republicans are all religious zealots whose every decision is dictated by their faith. As I mentioned previously, I am an athiest. Yet, for some strange reason, I share Republicans' position on taxes, free markets and defense. Is it possible, just possible, that these positions are not in any way related to faith? My observation, supported by the majority of the comments in this thread, is that many progressives support their positions by denigrating conservatives. I was an Environmental Science major at what was, at the time, the top rated public university in the country. Despite receiving an "advanced, liberal education", per angelobue's comment above, it would appear that we disagree on many issues. You will notice, however, that I do not describe progressives as whiny, incoherent and intellectually inconsistent enviro-facists, although it is tempting! By the way, angelobue, I found your comment about "mandating" a liberal education is extremely amusing, if not oxymoronic. What other aspect of my life would you like to "mandate"? Doesn't sound very "liberal" to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOh wow. The republicans here are upset. There's a surprise. I'd be upset too if I were a republican. It's partly why I stopped being one in the first place. The emotional smugness I was confusing for intellectual superiority was clouding my judgement.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI'm sure that's not happening to you guys though. :|
angelobue: "It might be worthwhile for ambertooth, the European with good friends in the States, to spend a few months traveling throughout the United States, especially away from the coasts, to familiarize himself with the less-educated America," etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisangelobue, I have travelled, alone and without my own transport, through Georgia, North and South Carolina and other similar regions 'away from the coasts' and for 'a few months', which perhaps underscores the follies of making assumptions about someone who is known to you merely as an Internet name. I was also overwhelmed by the hospitality extended to me by strangers in these places, and you do your countrymen a disservice when you describe them as 'mistrustful of those who are different'.
My contact with creationists and their ilk over an extended period of time has impressed upon me that they show anything but what you describe as 'their usual restraint'. 'Vociferous and argumentative' would be a more apt description, although what you say does fit their tendency to cast themselves in the role of victim.
You further state that "America is in danger of becoming a victim of a cultural disorder, the result of a growing contempt for liberal education, that usually produces isolationism and wars." During the soon-to-end present administration's term of office, it already has produced wars, and isolationism results from myopic policies which themselves pointedly isolate other countries on the one hand, and seek to cloud the educational curriculum and research in the sciences with faith-based issues on the other.
And, once again, other than making fun of conservatives, what is your answer to the questions posed in my posts? What is a faith-based approach to capitalism? What is a faith based approach to tax policy? What is liberal about "mandating" a liberal education? Why are sea levels and temperatures dropping if CO2 is steadily increasing? Etc... Etc... Etc...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEmotional smugness? Call me crazy, but stating facts and asking legitimate questions seems a lot less "emotional" than lashing out at those who disagree with you.
"sea levels and temperatures dropping if CO2 is steadily increasing" is a work of fiction. If you quate the source and/or paper it should be easy to prove that it is spin on partial facts.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt appears that the "right" currently seems less that scientific. However I would assert that in the past there was a time where the "left" was widely viewed as less than scientific. Remember the 70s? The american welfare state, EU socialism, and Russian communism all thought that people would share and work hard. While people do work together and many work hard most of the time psychology tells us that too much of the time humans cheat, get lazy, and/or depressed when not stimulated by fear or at least worry. This is why those views in the past did not function as well as was thought. They were simply not rationally based. (They right currently has a belief that "business" does not behave this way, again not rationally based.)
I would assert that the American right only seems unscientific at this point in time because they had much power and the moderates (most people that read sciam) are leaning over with the left at the moment. The situtation could easily reverse again.
The problem with being unscientific is that if you ignore and/or spin the data even communism seems like a good plan.
benpost, well side about Bastiat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbconley99, outstanding, up to the global warming stuff, there are some points to both sides, while the jury should still study the issues, safe gaurds cannot hurt in the meantime.
Dave, you need to think again, your not exactly right, and your use of the word "possibly" leads us to the conclusion that you are speculating down that yellow brick road.
ia
proadventurer, you are describing the media not politicians, they would talk on and on. Hope you don't get lost on the next adventure...take a GPS!
Jim, you are absolutely correct my friend.
poob, you have a good point.
Northwall, your standing tall except for that part of the wall that has the graffiti putting down McCain/Pail as not being smart. It is not about smarts, it is about a "policy choice," you seem to agree with them but don't like the light being shined on them. Sometimes is not about smart or not, it is just a choice. And if you had the big ones to stand as tall as someone willing to put it on the line to be President & VP, then you would get to make that choice too. By the way, you are absolutely correct about Sci Amer should stay out of politics! Make argument for policy, but leave it there for people to make up their own mind to choose. But that is hard to do for most propagandist...too bad Sci Amer looks like one.
spazmo, I like the chemical angle...but we won't get into that...as far as the rest, your right, except for the distinction you make between the "modern-day GOP and Obama. One has not a lick of sense and one has not any commonsense. Both are lacking the same...sense!
ambertooth, after 200 hundred years of imperialist capitalism around the world, Europe's riches have resulted in a collective of socialist failed states working under the guise of the European Union with histories filled with religious zealots throughout European history to rant on about...but no, you choose instead to propagandizing about ill informed rhetoric on Gov. Palin's so called beliefs.
hisboyelroy, well, where to begin with you. The world is not going to come to an end and the great quest for knowledge is not going to end, if the Alder does not get my tax money to shine a light on a ceiling in a building in Chicago. The citizens of Illinois and Chicago and afford to pay the light bill and the upkeep for a truly antique piece of equipment. Federal funds are more sorely needed elsewhere in our society. If you need money for the Alder, step up fundraising efforts, instead of asking for pork.
SA-Pirate: Point well taken. Here's one source on sea levels - http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/12/05/satellite-derived-sea-level-updated-trend-has-been-shrinking-since-2005/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not arguing that warming has not occured in the recent past or that it will not resume (although the famous Hockey Stick myth has been completely discredited and the planet has not warmed since peaking in 1998, according to NOAA and NASA's own data - the IPCC has quietly removed the "hockey stick" from its most recent reports) only that the data is inconclusive with respect to a correlation between CO2 and warming. While it is prudent to study the issue, it is highly irrational to implement radical CO2 reduction policies at the expense of far more beneficial and underfunded programs (e.g. nets and medicine to prevent and treat malaria, subsidized HIV drugs for underdeveloped countries etc...). Climatologists project that even the most aggressive CO2 reduction schemes, at a cost of trillions of dollars in economic activity, would reduce global mean temperatures by less than 2 degrees by the end of the century. Even if you believe there is a direct correlation between CO2 emissions and global warming, the cost/benefit analysis does not support the carbon credit or carbon tax schemes currently proposed. That aside, the incontrovertible evidence of anthroprogenic warming was supposed to be found in so-called "hotspots" in the upper atmosphere. Fortunately for us, no such evidence has materialized despite a decade of searching - Quote: "Real-world temperatures in the upper atmosphere have been measured with balloons since at least the 1960's and with microwave satellite sensors since 1979. However, the Hadley Centre’s plot of real-world radiosonde observations does not demonstrate the “global warming hot-spot” at all. The predicted phenomenon is startlingly and entirely absent from the observational record"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton_papers/greenhouse_warming_what_greenhouse_warming_.html
I get your drift and I'll check out the links further, but initially, these two links raise two red flags to me...one is a blog and the other is a non-profit institute with no information of who funds it. These are two killers when trying to find and validate information on any topic on the internet, if done outside academic research network channels.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf the funding source is not transparent for a non-profit, information should be immediately suspect. As for blogs, well...if you read anything on Huff, well you get my drift, I hope. I saw one post one time that linked blog after blog, five deep to justify rhetoric as being "true". Of course that was rank amateur politic crap being posted, rather than global James Bond, scientific conspiracy stuff.
bconley99:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is a debate for you to read about on whether or not carbon offsets really reduce emissions or are they a cynical effort to ignore the problemthe CO2 caps issues...it is a part of the Economist Magazine's Debate Series...makes for an interesting read...
http://www.economist.com/debate/overview/136
bconley99:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "global warming stopped in 1998" myth is debunked here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn14527
The "hockey stick has been completely discredited" myth is debunked here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11646
The "oceans are cooling" myth is debunked here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11664
Monckton is a crank with no scientific credentials.
bcconley99: I noticed you had no reply to my correcting your misinformation about polar bears and the quote from Obama about foreign oil. However, I will reply to you. A faith-based tax policy is one which says we will cut taxes and this will reduce the deficit. In fact, of course, the tax cuts make up the largest share of the deficit. A faith-based approach to capitalism says the markets work fine, we don't need common-sense regulation. In fact, of course, the lack of regulation has been a major factor in the global financial meltdown. A faith-based approach to national defense says we will be welcomed as liberators, even though we bombed Iraq back to the Stone Age in Gulf War I. In fact, of course, we were seen as occupiers and have had to fight an insurgency for several years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI never said all Republicans are anti-science religioijs zealots. I was replying to you and speaking to the topics you raised. I would appreciate it if you could refute any of the facts I have presented. Is your view really supported by "the vast majority" of commenters? I did not count, but that is not my impression. Even so, are you saying you are now in favor of determining the truth by popular vote? With all due respect, you may have been an Environmental Science major, but you appear to be getting your info from FOX news.
SA-PIRATE: "Where to begin?" How about with a reply that does not mischaracterize my point, which was that McCain grossly misrepresented what that earmark for the Adler Planetarium was all about. So you are against all earmarks. Many Republicans evidently do not agree, as they have set records running up earmark spending.
I'm a fan of the Economist and found that article interesting - thank you for sharing it. I also noted that 55% of respondents agreed with the proposition that carbon offsets are ineffective in reducing emissions. My problem with that is that is pre-supposes that reducing emissions is necessary in the first place. From everything I have read, it is more likely that warming causes an increase in CO2 concentrations, not the reverse. Ice cores show an increase of atmospheric CO2 follows (not precedes) warming periods by, on average, ~ 800 years. There is an interesting series of videos of Bob Carter, Research Professor at James Cook University, Queensland, examing the theoretical link between CO2 and global warming that I would recommend everyone view at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHis biography can be found on Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_M._Carter
hisboyelroy - watch the Bob Carter video for an answer to your question regarding polar bears. He addresses it directly. It has been both much warmer and much cooler on Earth long before we arrived (even the vaunted IPCC will agree with this statement), and somehow the polar bears have managed to survive more extreme conditions on both ends of the spectrum (without our help, no less). Polar bears are just a cute prop for climate alarmists - don't worry, they'll be fine.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf Obama was suggesting that we could offset just our foreign oil use by properly inflating our tires and getting regular tune-ups, that's still a ridiculous fantasy. It wouldn't offset what we use from a single middle eastern country. It was a ridiculous statement for which he was rightly mocked at the time he said it...
Oh really? And how about these guys?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Edward Wegman--former chairman of the Committee on Applied and Theoretical Statistics of the National Academy of Sciences--demolishes the famous "hockey stick" graph that launched the global warming panic.
Dr. David Bromwich--president of the International Commission on Polar Meteorology--says "it's hard to see a global warming signal from the mainland of Antarctica right now."
Prof. Paul Reiter--Chief of Insects and Infectious Diseases at the famed Pasteur Institute--says "no major scientist with any long record in this field" accepts Al Gore's claim that global warming spreads mosquito-borne diseases.
Prof. Hendrik Tennekes--director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute--states "there exists no sound theoretical framework for climate predictability studies" used for global warming forecasts.
You can read about the rest of them in the review of "The Deniers" at:
http://www.amazon.com/Deniers-Renowned-Scientists-Political-Persecution/dp/0980076315
I found this interesting as well, RottenHam - from the New Scientist Web site "about" section:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNew Scientist magazine was launched in 1956 "for all those men and women who are interested in scientific discovery, and in its industrial, commercial and social consequences". The brand's mission is no different today - for its consumers, New Scientist reports, explores and interprets the results of human endeavour set in the context of society and culture.
Commercial and social consequences? Interprets? Doesn't sound like unbiased science to me...
bconley99 - the tire pressure 'issue' was put to bed quite a while ago. See http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/the_truth_about_tire_pressure.html.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for Polar bears, I hope you're right. Wish them luck. Keep in mind that through those past fluctuations they did not have to deal with many humans.
What was the original question again? Oh yes, Republican approach to science in the past election. I'd give that about a zero, same as the past eight years.
hisboyelroy:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs for your thinking that I mischaracterized you, that would be hard to do with someone who names themselves on a thread after a cartoon character. Maybe you need to go back to watching The Jetsons and other cartoons. Trying to intertwine rhetorical crap such as "faith-based tax policy" being the blame for deficits shows your vast ignorance of economics and government. At least try taking some classes in "Chicago" school of economics, if not "Austrian."
You obviously have a big chip on your shoulder about the departing Bush administration in the United States. Get over it! I do, too. Mine is just not as irrationally huge as yours, as your rhetoric attest.
As for your use of words "sin"and "demagoguery" in your post relating to McCain, PLEASE! In the heat of a Presidential debate, any politician becomes a demagogue, Obama or McCain this last time around, including their VP picks. Besides McCain is right about the Zeiss projector, it is nothing but a fancy overhead projector. It was nothing but a big overgrown projector when I saw my first Zeiss Mark II in the 60's and even the Zeiss Mark VI parked in the planetarium, 25 miles down the road from me, right now.
The fact is that the local and regional communities were these "projectors" are located derive the benefit and the local communities and business ought to step up to support them and not the federal government with our tax dollars. Plus, there are other systems, made in the USA, that could be used as opposed to using updated technology from a 1923 projector system from Germany.
And for your last salvo about earmarks, did you see the headlines today...Obama follows McCains lead and BANS Earmarks from the spending bills. Got to love it! This coming from Obama, who requested on average a million dollars a day for each day in the Senate. And that is not a mischaracterization!
Yes, a planetarium show is entertaining and in some cases,inspiring. But why should people in California and New York contribute to a planetarium in Chicago? If the people there want a planetarium, let them pay for it. The big problem is that politicians have gotten "the peepul" hooked on Federal handouts without worrying about where the money really comes from. When I read about all of these handouts, i find myself thinking about a nest of baby birds with their beaks wide open and loudly peeping for more! more! more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYes, a planetarium show is entertaining and in some cases, inspiring, But why should people in New York and California pay for a projector in Chicago? If the people there want a planetarium, let them pay for it. The big problem is that political hacks have gotten "the peepul" addicted to Federal handouts with no worry about where the money comes from. When I read about pork politics like this, I imagine America as a nest of baby birds with their beaks wide open and peeping loudly for more! more! more!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe "CO2 lags warming" myth is debunked here: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn11659
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe NAS examined the hockey stick graph and concluded that it was basically correct and supported by other independent studies. Wegman's view is not shared by the NAS.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBromwich's comments are not supported by the evidence: http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/10/081030144618.htm
Reiter's arguments have failed to persuade: http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200506/ldselect/ldeconaf/71/71.pdf
Hendrik Tennekes WAS the director of research at the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute. He no longer is. In fact, he hasn't published any peer-reviewed research on anything in almost 20 years. He's now retired and is not working on the cutting edge of climate research. Contrary to his claims, the models have passed numerous validation tests as discussed in IPCC AR4 WG1 Ch. 8.
So we're to believe that New Scientist is biased but Robert Carter isn't? LOL!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou can find a nice debunking of Carter's claims here: http://timlambert.org/category/science/bobcarter/
The IPCC is a government sponsored policy-driven organization that represents the agendas of the constituent countries - it is not a scientific body. The models they use, which are designed to confirm their own theories, contain numerous "fudge factors" to fill in gaps that no supercomputer yet invented can calculate. We can't even accurately predict weather more than a few days in advance (witness the spectacular absence of destructive hurricanes in the two years after Katrina, despite dire predictions of consistently stronger and more destructive hurricanes as a result of global warming). The Farmer's Almanac is a better source for divining the future. Even with the fudge factors, the models have all failed miserably to predict what has been observed since the climate hysteria started. Now we're told that cooling is a sign of warming! Just like Newsweek and Time Magazine fretted about "Global Cooling" on their covers in the 70s and now have egg on their faces, so too will those who have bought into this fabrication hook, line and sinker. After, of course, they've pilfered trillions from our pockets. Here's a prediction for you that doesn't require a dubious computer model with fudge factors - 2009 will be the year that myth of anthroprogenic warming is fully debunked. We'll have to agree to disagree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisbconley99 and SA-PIRATE: Boy, I am sure glad conservatives don't denigrate liberals. Let's see, I am light-hearted enough to reference a cartoon character in my username, but for merely stating the Bush II record in a few areas I have "a big chip on my shoulder?" If only these isues were really just all about me. Am I not supposed to be concerned about these huge, ongoing failures? Your lack of logic and your inconsistencies speak for themselves.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThings worth explaining: Charles law: Temperature and volume are directly porportional in gases*, but as we know as tempurature drops water expands as it converts to a solid, even sea water with its impurities has a freezing point and expands as it gets cooler, thus sea levels would be going up as tempurature drops.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisglobal cooling and global warming also directly correlate; as Global warming occurs the ice caps melt (killing bears/seals in the process) and cause desalination, or dilution of the impurities in sea water, thereby lowering the tempurature required to freeze. as many people are quick to point out: climate works in cycles.
Additionally, the polar bear populations are decreasing due to global warming, and their short rise in population over the previous two decades can be explained by the worldwide ban on hunting them for sport or food.
Gas laws: http://www.grc.nasa.gov/WWW/K-12/airplane/aglussac.html
The above is pretty clear cut and understandable, yes? As for desalination, it is a proven effect in use in industry today to provide fresh water. ( desal process discovered roughly around 2500 BC )
I remember when Sci Am used to celebrate science. It has become a journal of opinion and that's a loss. Now many of the "science" stories turn out to be polemics and complaints wrapped in scientific clothing. I know people in science as in any walk of life have legitimate grievances. But do the editors think that is what the readers want to read week after week? I suggest the magazine turn away from the whining and back to the wonder.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThings worth commenting on in relation to main article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is understandable the author of the article may want to straighten out inaccuracies and fallicies of science cast by the McCain ticket, however it seems to be more personal opinion than I have expected from Sciam.
In addition it gives only three examples of how McCain bashed science-related issues and the disappointing part is that they are not presented* as strong as I expected, and at first thought are not strong points;
however consider the following: The deal with the planetarium is like junior sports programs or military airshows/aerial parades, almost exactly, in the effect that it recruits new interest to fields that youth are being desensitized to... That* is worth 200K of taxpayer money (or about the amount theoretically spent on 10-15 grants for "minority" [racial] students). It wont fix the 2009 fiscal budget, but it will help produce great researchers 15 years from now, even if it influences only 1 child in a thousand.
In the end the planetarium investment is totally worth it as a tool of inspiration of the youth in a society that is quickly losing its moral basis in its youth (a claim easily supported by crime rates and the effects of pop culture [a seasonal or fad culture]). Think of it like the military parade example, or a job fair. Moral basis coming into play when they refute education and add to growing crime population.
Again the planetarium isnt just a toy, but a tool rather and although it ($200k) wont help fiscal 2009, it is an insignificant amount (about 2 hellfire II missiles for the appache). Some have suggested the planetarium upgrade wait , however the brunt of the economy downswing is still to come and that would leave a lesser chance of it getting done at all.
the only appearent reason McCain brought the subject up was to discredit Obamas stance on prioritising science funding/research/education as a main priority of the government. In reality McCain has supported such "ancillary" spending as a senator, as did obama.
I am rather surprised of the tone and personal opinion displayed in this Sciam report, however, as it lacks the neutrality in politics science is reputable for...
The Debates: look closely at Joe Biden's response to the question of " global warming". He blamed all on the human race, 100%! On the other hand Governor Palin correctly answered the question, check her answer. If one knows Earth's history, and the solar systems history, it is obvious that she gets the "A", and Joe gets a "D-". The media said nothing. You want to pick on one side and let the other go free, especially on a question which has not received a true scientific discourse is a recurring problem, and unless the complete history of our planets weather is scientifically disclosed, we will continue to get politically statements that are only partially true. Chastising works both ways, and if you are going to try to to be honest, you would have picked-up that obscurantism.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe IPCC is a collection of scientists from universities and government agencies. They are not paid by the IPCC and it is not a "policy-driven" organization. All of it's conclusions are based on the best peer-reviewed science available. That it reaches conclusions that you don't like doesn't make it an advocacy group.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI see you commit the classic fallacy of confusing weather and climate.
The "they predicted cooling in the '70s" myth is debunked here: http://www.usatoday.com/weather/climate/globalwarming/2008-02-20-global-cooling_N.htm
Deniers have been telling us that man-made global warming will be disproved for years. Yet, the evidence for it has only grown stronger. I predict that in 2009, this evidence for it will continue to accumulate while deniers continue to spout their long-discredited ideas.
Governor Palin's answer only betrayed her own ignorance. She issued the standard right-wing denier answer that has made the entire conservative movement look like a bunch of drop-outs. She is a perfect embodiment of the right's anti-science, anti-intellectual, mystical world view. Thank goodness she lost!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI liked the article. There's room in the magazine for both hard science and social commentary.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour counter-argument is to reference USA Today? It's settled then. I'm speechless. You have won the debate Sir RottenHam. Cheers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSA-PIRATE: "ambertooth, after 200 hundred years of imperialist capitalism around the world, Europe's riches have resulted in a collective of socialist failed states working under the guise of the European Union with histories filled with religious zealots throughout European history to rant on about...but no, you choose instead to propagandizing about ill informed rhetoric on Gov. Palin's so called beliefs."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy own previous comments make it clear that, in spite of the geography involved, I had neither the intention nor the interest in opening up any Atlantic divide. More directly, I even defended the behaviour of Americans against a more critical countryman of yours here.
In direct contrast, your own posturings, which are as inaccurate as they are absurdist (see above), make it evident that you are out to create such a divide, and to create the effect that this was the issue. I notice that I am not the only commenter here to object that you have misrepresented what they have said.
As with many who seek only argument, it is plain from your comments that you are more preoccupied with criticising the remarks of others than with offering any original insights of your own.
rustdog: Here is what Gov. Sarah Palin had to say, in all its glory:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMs. Ifill: "What is true and what is false about what we have heard, read, discussed, debated about the causes of climate change?"
Gov. Palin: "Yeah, well, as the nation's only Arctic state, and being the governor of that state, Alaska feels and sees impacts of climate change more so than any other state, and we know that it is real. I am not one to attribute every man ... ah, activity of man to the changes in the climate. There is somehting to be said, also, for man's activities, but also for the cyclical temperature changes going on in our climate, and I don't want to argue about the causes. What I want to argue about is how are we going to get there to positively affect the impacts? We have got to clean up this planet. [...] We have got to reduce emissions ..."
So she does not agree with the scientific consensus about human-caused global warming, preferring to focus instead on the polluting effects of emissions. By contrast, in his response Sen. Biden states his unequivocal belief in the scientific consensus that human activities are causing the polar ice cap to melt. He also points out that unless we know the causes of the problem, we cannot successfully address it.
Had you actually read the USA Today article, you would have discovered that it reports on research done by Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center that was published in the Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society. Here's the meaty part:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"But Thomas Peterson of the National Climatic Data Center surveyed dozens of peer-reviewed scientific articles from 1965 to 1979 and found that only seven supported global cooling, while 44 predicted warming. Peterson says 20 others were neutral in their assessments of climate trends."
The "global cooling" thing is a myth and a lie.
As advised by rustydog, I checked out the Biden and Palin responses from their debate (at Washington University in St. Louis). First, I need to correct rustydog: the question from Gwen Ifill was
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisabout 'climate change' not 'global warming.' Palin's response was,
in effect,
that climate change is due both to "man's activities" and "cyclical temperature
changes
on our planet." Biden did not say '100%' but did say climate change is man-made;
in
particular,
he
said man-made climate change was causing the polar ice cap to melt.
What "cyclical temperature change?" What is the cause and period of this cycle? What evidence is there that this unnamed "cycle" exists and is at work today?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSounds to me like Palin was just making stuff up.
I read the article before replying. I did not say that there was a scientific "consensus' with regard to global cooling in the 70s. I said that there was a media-fed hysteria on the subject (it did, after all, make the covers of both Time and Newsweek). The content of the article and the study referenced does nothing to refute that. In the end, this debate is pointless. Point, counterpoint - you choose your sources, I choose mine and in the end no progress is made on either side. How about you and Al Gore's legions contribute your tax dollars to your belief and I withold mine based on my beliefs (and all the heavily credentialed scientists quoted in Lawrence Solomon's "The Deniers" who you say are now all crackpots). Would that work for you RottenHam? There are just of few of us crackpot deniers out there, so the financial impact on your grand CO2 reduction schemes should be minimal.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, that would be pointless reading. The only people who doubt that mankind's activities, especially burning fossil carbon fuels, are to blame for global warming are those who can willfully ignore a mountain of data. You claim the liberal side distorts science? SHOW ME AN EXAMPLE. Don't just state it as a given. In examining global warming, legit science does what it always does: examine all possible other explanations. It isn't politics, and it isn't a popular vote. Einstein was once confronted with the fact that hundreds of mathematicians believed they could disprove one of his theories. His response? "One." A disproof would be valid even if only one theorist showed it to be so.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisJust because science has come to conclusions you personally don't like doesn't make it politics, my friend.
Manmade global warming is real. Get over it.
The tire-inflation idea is not silly. When you're talking about such large numbers, a slight improvement in efficiency is significant. Why sneer at an idea that could save even one day's worth of oil a year?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Republican party is anti science. Authoritarian rulers do not want the population educated and informed. Science and new ideas are not encouraged .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank God we will not get 4 more years of the same.
Long live science and man's ability to explore and discover new things about himself and the world we live in!!!
Sure, bconley99. You can withhold your tax dollars from the fight against global warming, IF I can withhold mine for 1) the Iraq war, 2) abstinence-only education, 3) farm subsidies that go to agribusiness corporations, 4) tax breaks for Exxon, 5) the part of the bailout that will be sucked up by executive bonuses.........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee where I'm going with this, pal?
What you're saying, in essence, is that you have a right to be wrong, that your utterly unsupportable beliefs are just as valid as theories supported by actual evidence.
Just keep repeating "Global warming is a hoax." over and over again and pull the blankets up over your head.
That'll solve everything.
This transparent attempt to distort GOP policies based on its own "cherry-picking" of the data did not fool me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI applaud the author for explaining some exaggerations and misguided claims from Republicans, but you do a disservice to your readers by descending into mindless partisanship. It was a Republican Congress which doubled the NIH budget in the 1990's ,and a Democrat President who signed that budget so anyone who thinks that scientists can get by supporting a single party should think again.
Here is an attempt to bring some facts that might have been added to make this a more fair and balanced article. Obama wants to reduce carbon emissions, but opposes nuclear energy. Wind and solar are great, but we can't store the energy efficiently so without nuclear energy we will end up falling back on coal to meet our energy needs when the sun isn't shining or the wind isn't blowing. Biden mentioned biofuels as being clean energy in the VP debate. If you believe in anthropogenic global warming, they aren't (although they may be justified economically if the price of gas goes over $6.00 per gallon or from a national security standpoint). So I suppose that is two strikes against the Obama administration if we are keeping score.
BTW, Economics is a science and so you might have examined some of his economic policies which don't bear well under scrutiny. The New Deal did not end the Great Depression, WWII did. So all of this talk of how a new "spending stimulus" is going to save the economy any better this time is questionable. Inflating the currency (as the Bush admin is already doing) has driven many a country to economic ruin. More of the same with Obama.
As a fly researcher, I can be disappointed with Palin's misguided criticism of fly research while applauding her commitment to fiscal responsibility. President Obama is projecting trillion dollar deficits for the next several years! Money for research has to come from somewhere and if scientists aren't willing to cut wasteful spending anywhere, it will have to be cut *everywhere*. Let's help to make sure that the cuts are appropriate. Undignified attacks on public officials are counterproductive; referring to Palin's comments as the "coup de graceless" was poor judgement.
I look hopefully to a seeing a new kind of politics, but sadly, this "sore-winner" article doesn't help us to get there from here. I will defend the Obama admin when it is right, but you better believe that this scientist will be appropriately critical of some of its more dubious scientific claims.
These are very important pet projects, however pork barrel easy govt spending will only ruin us. This kind of funding will buy votes , but puts our economic well being in trouble. Funding for this these kind of things, with creativity , ingenuity and diligence and commitment can easily be raised in the free market via non profit organizations and funding from private enterprise. Why create an inefficient beuracracy? Mcain is absolutely right. Lets face it, govt funding is easy and employs so called scientists and administrators and beuracrats. If the free market funded these projects, the costs would be half as much. I have a lot of issues with mcain on his pandering, but one thing we can say is he's never ever requested any funding for pork , and yet he's managed to get re elected over and over again. WHAT A CONCEPT!!!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPolitical correctness at major universities has served to damage science and engineering by challenging those whose views deviate from the norm. Dr. Cullen has advocated that meteorologists who don't subscribe to global warming be decertified. Dr. Hansen has advocated that leaders of energy companies should be tried for crimes against humanity. This type of thinking has made its way into our universities and will lead to a decline in academic thought and freedom. Incidentally, academics tend to tilt far to the left.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Italian philosopher Benedetto Croce chastised the Fascist populist and antiscientific creed by definining it "onagrocracy", the rule of asses. We all know that science policy is a complex endeavours and there are Madoff types even in science, but the pretense that science research has to be submitted to public scrutiny without competent judgement is mindless bevause it could easily lead to ideological outcomes. We already experienced that in the history of science with Lysenko. Guido
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading Steve Mirsky's article has inspired me to respond. His arguments are weak on his strike points, and obviously coming from a left leaning point of view(Well...I guess this is in the Opinion section)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisScience has always relied on private/public financing. When people in the public believe their money is not being spent wisely, they have a tendency to not want to put their money to that again. $800 screwdriver anyone? I believe the Republican point of veiw, as stated by McCain/Palin...were just pointing out this fact.
Strike one: Spending 5 million dollars on what is basicaly putting up a sticky pad in the middle of the forest, and hoping a bear walks by leaving hair on it...would seem to me to be highly inaccurate. I'm willing to bet there are a few individuals who would love to spend time in the woods, tracking such critters and being more accurate in the process.
Strike two: 3 million dollars for a star projector? Really....3 million? If there is building infrastructure and other things to bring this to life, I could see it. But 3 miilon for a star projector soulds like someone is getting hosed (public perception)
Strike three: Why would we send $211,000 to another country, when I'm sure there are scientists here that would love to have the work. Also, the Olive industry in California is private industry. Why does the Govt. need to fund this? At $85 millon dollar retail value, $211,000 would be small pitance for this industry to pay for and protect itself. I like olives in my martini's as well as the next guy...but sheesh!
Science is extremely importatnt in our society, as to help advance and make our culture easier to live in. But financial responsibility also needs to go with this
....Sorry if this a little wordy