The G.O.P.’s War on Science Gets Worse(newyorker.com)
newyorker.com
The G.O.P.’s War on Science Gets Worse
http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/gop-war-on-science-gets-worse
7 comments
Good luck. The vocal majority on HN are still opposed to the findings of climate science.
As to the article: I fear I'm getting a bit burned out on political topics (which it mostly is). It seems impossible for me, personally, to change any of it for the better, and so much of political news is disappointing, especially when it involves science. As you correctly pointed out in the other thread, it's just as bad on left-leaning sites with regard to GMO topics.
The U.S. has held a position of technological and economic prominence through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, but we are far, far behind now on education -- a problem which will be punishing us for the rest of the century at least -- and funding for scientific research, which drives technological advancement, has been under assault from so many directions for decades now. Switzerland won the biggest discovery in physics so far this century, but it could have been done years ago in Texas (http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/how-texas-lost-worlds-larg...). Our most realistic hopes and dreams for space exploration now rest on a single company. Other countries are starting to take their first steps towards space (http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/07/uae-plans-to-fly-s...) while NASA still tries to do the best they can with shamefully little funding. (I'm not yet willing to give them even odds of getting there on time though.) Germany's leading the world in development of renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany), France has the best nuclear reactors in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France), Canada has some of the best health care in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada) ... all things the U.S. has the resources to compete in, but doesn't because of politics.
So there are political groups that are strangling our future for the sake of present interests. There doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it because they represent the desires of a large number of people. Maybe the enormous wealth and other remaining advantages in the U.S. will keep things on a more or less even keel for a long time to come; maybe the U.S. will slide behind the rest of the world and there will be another diaspora of science and technology to other countries. Who knows.
As to the article: I fear I'm getting a bit burned out on political topics (which it mostly is). It seems impossible for me, personally, to change any of it for the better, and so much of political news is disappointing, especially when it involves science. As you correctly pointed out in the other thread, it's just as bad on left-leaning sites with regard to GMO topics.
The U.S. has held a position of technological and economic prominence through most of the 19th and 20th centuries, but we are far, far behind now on education -- a problem which will be punishing us for the rest of the century at least -- and funding for scientific research, which drives technological advancement, has been under assault from so many directions for decades now. Switzerland won the biggest discovery in physics so far this century, but it could have been done years ago in Texas (http://www.texasmonthly.com/story/how-texas-lost-worlds-larg...). Our most realistic hopes and dreams for space exploration now rest on a single company. Other countries are starting to take their first steps towards space (http://www.thewire.com/technology/2014/07/uae-plans-to-fly-s...) while NASA still tries to do the best they can with shamefully little funding. (I'm not yet willing to give them even odds of getting there on time though.) Germany's leading the world in development of renewable energy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renewable_energy_in_Germany), France has the best nuclear reactors in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_power_in_France), Canada has some of the best health care in the world (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_in_Canada) ... all things the U.S. has the resources to compete in, but doesn't because of politics.
So there are political groups that are strangling our future for the sake of present interests. There doesn't seem to be much that can be done about it because they represent the desires of a large number of people. Maybe the enormous wealth and other remaining advantages in the U.S. will keep things on a more or less even keel for a long time to come; maybe the U.S. will slide behind the rest of the world and there will be another diaspora of science and technology to other countries. Who knows.
Hmm, maybe I'll do a poll over the w/e - my impression was that a majority of people on HN take anthropogenic climate change seriously as an issue.
I agree with the rest of your post about an excess focus short-term interests hurting our long term strategic position.
I agree with the rest of your post about an excess focus short-term interests hurting our long term strategic position.
A majority may, but the ones that show up in related threads or vote on comments and so on overwhelmingly believe that climate science isn't science.
It's a battle I've had on HN from time to time for years ever since the big email leak that proved "fraud" years ago.
I don't bother much anymore though. HN is not influential at all in terms of climate policy and there's already plenty of information available to anyone that would consider changing their position anyway.
It's a battle I've had on HN from time to time for years ever since the big email leak that proved "fraud" years ago.
I don't bother much anymore though. HN is not influential at all in terms of climate policy and there's already plenty of information available to anyone that would consider changing their position anyway.
GMOs, nuclear power, space travel, health care... all things that you can create testable hypothesis for. Climate "Science" can create computer models, not real tests and they're always wrong (none predicted the last 15 year hiatus in temp). It is always the same person collecting and analyzing the data. Nobody releases the code to their models. There are millions of variables in the climate, and we can't isolate and test a single one because of the scale of the earth, let alone all of them like we can with nuclear reactions. And yet, we're going to halt economic development that benefits real people, right now? If you asked the average New Yorker in 1900 what they'd worry about if there were 20 million people living in New York City, they'd ask you how the city could possibly dispose of all the horse shit from 15 million horses. We can leverage fossil fuels to lift billions of people out of poverty or we can worry about all of the horse shit on the streets.
And yet, we're going to halt economic development that benefits real people, right now?
I've heard a few people argue that growth is the problem, but they're fringe economic thinkers. Most green types I know want to see dirty ofssil fuels displaced by a cleaner more effective solution that will support continued growth, The more serious ones see nuclear as part of the toolset for that.
Your argument about the deficiencies of models involves a number of unsupportable assumptions, particularly the assertion that because the climate is so big and complex that it's impossible to validate any part of our model. On the contrary, we're able to do very rigorous measurements in multiple dimensions on things like glaciers and polar ice density. I don't think you'd take me seriously if you said cosmology was a fundamentally doomed enterprise because the universe is so big. If we are willing to invest in space science to further the aim of travel and seeking life on other planets in the solar system (which aims the science committee does favor), then it's not unreasonable to think we can do at least a good a job of studying our own planet as exploring travel to others (an aim I also support).
I've heard a few people argue that growth is the problem, but they're fringe economic thinkers. Most green types I know want to see dirty ofssil fuels displaced by a cleaner more effective solution that will support continued growth, The more serious ones see nuclear as part of the toolset for that.
Your argument about the deficiencies of models involves a number of unsupportable assumptions, particularly the assertion that because the climate is so big and complex that it's impossible to validate any part of our model. On the contrary, we're able to do very rigorous measurements in multiple dimensions on things like glaciers and polar ice density. I don't think you'd take me seriously if you said cosmology was a fundamentally doomed enterprise because the universe is so big. If we are willing to invest in space science to further the aim of travel and seeking life on other planets in the solar system (which aims the science committee does favor), then it's not unreasonable to think we can do at least a good a job of studying our own planet as exploring travel to others (an aim I also support).
Is there ever a case to preface a statement with the disclaimer "I'm not a politician..."?
It would be good if we could discuss it without it being flagged again. In the interests of political balance, I'd like to mention that I find Democratic hostility to free trade policy quite as benighted as GOP hostility to certain lines of economic inquiry.