by Frank James
If politics were a beach, President-elect Barack Obama would be kicking a little Al Gore sand onto President Bush today.
In his Saturday web address to the nation, the next president, in announcing the completion of his White House science team, says his administration will be marked by a respect for scientific inquiry even when the truths it reveals are "inconvenient."
Obama said in part:
Because the truth is that promoting science isn't just about providing resources--it's about protecting free and open inquiry. 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. Because the highest purpose of science is the search for knowledge, truth and a greater understanding of the world around us. That will be my goal as President of the United States--and I could not have a better team to guide me in this work.
Former Vice President Gore has spent recent years castigating Bush and his administration for ignoring scientific results that didn't fit with their conservative worldview, a critique that culminated in Gore's Oscar-winning movie "An Inconvenient Truth" and in his winning a Nobel Prize.
It was a criticism made by many others that appeared to be borne out by reporting by journalists.
Those days are over, Obama was essentially saying.
Obama's science team includes Harvard University professor John Holdren who will be assistant to the President for Science and Technology and Director of the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy.
Dr. Harold Varmus, a Nobel-Prize winning cancer researcher and onetime Director of the National Institutes of Health, and Eric Lander of MIT and Harvard, a leader of the Human Genome Project, were named Council of Advisors on Science and Technology co-chairs.
Also, Jane Lubchenco, an Oregon State University marine scientist respected for her environmental research, was named administrator of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which is part of the Commerce Department.
Comments
I always thought it very odd that Bush and Cheney denied much of main stream science in favor of religious, almost vodoo, beliefs. I never could tell if they were that dumb or had some hidden agenda to protect bid business. Would like to ask them both but no answer would be forthcoming, I'm sure
Posted by: Downtown | December 20, 2008 2:33 PM
"It's about ensuring that facts and evidence are never twisted or obscured by politics or ideology."
.
I certainly can't disagree with that. It's easy enough to castigate the Bush Administration's antiscience stance. Hear, hear!
.
Now here's an objectively proven (and inconvenient) truth for Obama and company to confront:
Corn-based ethanol is an environmental and economic disaster; it has raised food prices globally (leading to starvation and food riots in poorer nations); it is inefficient and even burns dirtier than gasoline.
.
Agribusiness loves it, though. So does Big Oil, since food crops require huge amounts of petroleum to produce.
.
Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. If Obama abandons the boondoggle called Corn-based Ethanol, I'll respect him for today's pro science statement. Until he does, though, it's just so much hypocrisy.
Posted by: MJ | December 20, 2008 3:39 PM
As usual when Obumble makes a claim ("no contact" being the latest), the opposite is true.
In fact Obumble aims to further politicize "science". One example of this is his appointment of John Holdren as science advisor. As NRO reports:
"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.
Dr. Holdren, now a physicist at Harvard, was one of the experts in natural resources whom Paul Ehrlich enlisted in his famous bet against the economist Julian Simon during the “energy crisis” of the 1980s. Dr. Simon, who disagreed with environmentalists’ predictions of a new “age of scarcity” of natural resources, offered to bet that any natural resource would be cheaper at any date in the future. Dr. Ehrlich accepted the challenge and asked Dr. Holdren, then the co-director of the graduate program in energy and resources at the University of California, Berkeley, and another Berkeley professor, John Harte, for help in choosing which resources would become scarce.
In 1980 Dr. Holdren helped select five metals — chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten — and joined Dr. Ehrlich and Dr. Harte in betting $1,000 that those metals would be [more expensive] ten years later. They turned out to be wrong on all five metals, and had to pay up when the bet came due in 1990."
Posted by: Change You Can Believe In | December 20, 2008 3:44 PM
First off – I believe Global Warming is a very serious “Very Real- Man Induced” problem.
However, I do not believe the US is to blame. All we did was develop technologies that the rest of the world would have, if they could have. We were, and are, simply more technologically advanced[ [and the world is very jealous of this, and therefore all the criticism, not to mention that we are the worlds only Superpower, and the world is also jealous of that. Kyoto is as much an attempt to undermine our economy as an attempt to solve Global Warming. Much of the world is just using it as an Economic Tool against us – and many people in the US see this for exactly what it is, Hypocrisy,….. and much of the world knows we know. Probably the main reason even Clinton and Gore would not truly support Kyoto]].
Having a degree in Natural Resources I think the evidence (about global warming) is very Clear and Convincing ‘today’. However, I was not really sure until about 1995, even though I started seeing strong evidence around about 1985. At that point a noticeable warm up started (at least where I was living, & others said they noticed it also, in my area & elsewhere). In my opinion the evidence gradually got stronger till 95, when I thought the evidence was strong enough (and has only gotten stronger, today it is downright scary – the Arctic Ice Cap Meltdown - not funny). So, I really don’t think you can blame us till then (95), and many still don’t (or don’t want to) see it, & not just in the US. However, since 95 the US has made many moves (on many fronts) to combat the problem, and many other countries are dragging their feet, or have been given a free pass (the main Kyoto problem). One of the biggest examples here is China…..but there are others.
The world says it is our Industry that caused the problem (they don’t talk about Britain, and other Industrialized nations as much), but it is also probably mostly ‘Our Technology’ that is going to solve it……………….[I could also throw in many examples of other countries stealing our technology on the international market (weak international patent protections, and many anti-US countries want it that way), the vast majority of SE Asian Industries are built on Appropriated US Technology……. Etc., Etc…………………….…
Our Technology and Industry also saved the world in WWI, WWII, and the Cold War (not to mention other situations). If we had not spent all those years developing various Industries, and Aircraft, & Jeeps, & Tanks, & Ships the afore-mentioned wars would have been lost [[prior to Pearl Harbor the only modern Fighter Plane in SE Asia, other than a Japanese model, was the P-40 Curtis Hawk (Flying Tigers), not a great plane but it kept China from falling]]. We had to use Trains & Trucks to move parts from factory to factory. It took factories to build trains & trucks also, and they had to burn fuel (all this putting carbon in the atmosphere, etc). All those planes, & jeeps, & tanks, & ships etc also burned fuel etc., etc., etc. Not to mention when ours, or the other side’s material got destroyed & released carbon.
Our Industry saved the world on several occasions (also, we have established MANY Democracies around the world,….. how many has Russia or China established !!!). So when people talk about this situation as if we are the only beneficiaries, of such Industrialization, they should look at history again, more objectively. If not for us, much of the world could today be under Japanese Imperialism, or Nazism, or USSR domination………’Comprende’.
The rest of the world has ‘As Much a Responsibility’ to solve this problem as we do,
So, THEY SHOULD STOP BALKING, and cut the EXCUSES.
Posted by: Mr Reality | December 20, 2008 4:05 PM
What got us into this mess is the Greedy Oil Party and their reliance on the organized Christianists and their willingness to throw them a bone on science-related issues because it doesn't interfere with the Grover Norquist-wing of the party's ongoing raiding of our treasury for the very rich.
There will always be ignorant people. And some of these will always be moved to vote their ignorance.
What has gotten us into so much trouble is the effectiveness of a very organized group of the ignorant part of the GOP at leveraging their beliefs into a certain sort of political power. They often feel frustrated with the GOP because their power, though exaggerated, is still highly circumscribed. At the end of the day, the Republican Party in government is all about the Benjamins for themselves and their rich and powerful friends.
Posted by: Reagan was a fraud and a failure | December 20, 2008 4:41 PM
Being the highest ranking Science & Technology officer in the Bush White House was like being the most respected screen door maker on a submarine.
Posted by: Teresa | December 20, 2008 5:22 PM
Scientific research, just one more area where Bush has done incalculable damage. Think of all the research that is years behind for lack of support, either financial or moral, while other countries are making breakthroughs. And Bush has pre-destroyed the next generation of scientists with No Child Left Behind which has gutted science programs in schools because they're not on the test.
Sanity at last, and great hope for the future. The anti-science people on the extreme rightwing lunatic fringe have done a lot of harm to public policy in the past few decades.
Obama's great appointments and his vow to support science education will have a positive impact for years to come.
Good science teachers educate students not only in the facts but also in how to think about the world: fidelity to the scientific method, to objectivity, and to verifiable truths
Posted by: HopeNChange | December 20, 2008 5:35 PM
Sell the kids for food
Weather changes moods
Science is here again
Reproductive glands
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
don't know what it means
when I say
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
don't know what it means
when I say yeeeaaahhh
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm
We can have some more
Nature is a w*ore
Bruises on the fruit
Tender age in bloom
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
don't know what it means
when I say
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
don't know what it means
when I say yeeeaaahhh
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
knows not what it means
when I say
Bush’s the one
Who likes all our pretty songs
And he likes to sing along
And he likes to shoot his guns
But he don't know what it means
don't know what it means
don't know what it means
don't know what it means and I say yeeeaaahhh
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bquEAdZXo1U
.
Posted by: Change We Do Believe In | December 20, 2008 5:53 PM
Posted by: MJ | December 20, 2008 3:39 PM
Computers, up to the early '90's, were ALSO far too expensive and cumbersome for people to even remotely consider in their homes. It was a wild, castle-in-the-clouds thought, and if you'd suggested earnestly that personally-owned computers would someday be commonplace (assuming you weren't some science fiction writer), you'd have been laughed at. Then technology took off, prices went down, and zip-bang -- here we are.
Alternate fuel sources such as ethanol needn't be abandoned as sources of exploration, even if they aren't practical right now. Technology changes, and so can we.
Posted by: Op109 | December 20, 2008 8:09 PM
There are 31,172 scientists who consider man making global warming to be bad science. There were 600 scientists - world wide - who questioned the reality of GW at the last summit held this month. Reality check: We are in a mini ice age. Google global warming hoax to find the articles questioning the junk science used to support it. Go to the Congressional climate site.ca) Google Rep. Rohrabacker ) and read his Floor speech in Congress in which he asks if those pushing this junk science down our throats think we are "morons?" Then, write your letter to your Congresspersons to tell them you won't pay the "tax" they are developing to keep us from using energy. Remember - Gore did NOT win the Nobel Prize in Science - but in Peace. It was awarded by 5 individuals known for their Green ideas.
Posted by: Linda Mae | December 21, 2008 1:05 AM
Bush/Cheney have been wrong on embryonic stem cell research, based on irrational religious berliefs.
But Algore's commercial pecuniary interests in carbon transfers and other 'greening' silliness is based on alleged scientific conclusions. In reality, although we ALWAYS have climate change, the dastardly Global Warming is a scam. The Earth has cooled since 1998, not gotten warmer.
The SUN is primarily responsible for Earth's continuing Climatic changes.
Take the politics out of the "science"!
Posted by: Hazmet | December 21, 2008 9:32 AM
"Alternate fuel sources such as ethanol needn't be abandoned as sources of exploration, even if they aren't practical right now. Technology changes, and so can we."
Posted by: Op109 | December 20, 2008 8:09 PM
.
Ethanol, yes, but not from food. It can be made from switch grass (an indigenous prairie grass that doesn't require petrol fertilizers and pesticides) of from agricultural waste (corn stalks, leaves, seed hulls etc) or from any kind of cellulose, such as sawdust and woodchips.
.
"Cellulosic ethanol contains more net energy and emits significantly fewer greenhouse gases than ethanol made from corn." said Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman
.
However, Agribusiness doesn't like that idea. they want to sell food crops. Big oil doesn't like it. They want to sell petrol fertilizers and pesticides. So most of our politicians are backing the dirty, inefficient version of ethanol, (Gee, I wonder why?) and all of the refineries are tooled for biofuels from food crops.
.
Food is for eating, not fueling our cars.
.
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=grass-makes-better-ethanol-than-corn
.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Switchgrass
Posted by: MJ | December 21, 2008 9:57 AM
I took your advice Linda Mae and googled Rep. Rohrabacker. I found this quote:
"I HOPE IT'S YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS THAT DIE" said US Representative Dana Rohrabacker to American citizens who questioned the Bush administration's unlawful extraordinary rendition policies.
-
That's some hero you have. I hope you don't mind if I consider him an idiot.
Posted by: Bruce Y | December 21, 2008 10:25 AM
...
Posted by: Linda Mae | December 21, 2008 1:05 AM
....
The Bush administration and the RNC paid off alot of scientists to deny global warming, so what?
The want deadenders like you to keep going on message boards like this to fight for the right of big corporations to save cash by polluting at will.
Mission Accomplished!
Posted by: HopeNChange | December 21, 2008 3:08 PM
--Some areas of the seas are cooling from all the glacial runoff & the arctic ice melt (Google up the “Younger-Dryas” period (Wikipedia probably has the easiest to understand). As the last glaciation ended an Ice Dam broke that allowed water to flow out the St Laurence Seaway (instead of the Mississippi). The cold water flowing into the N. Atlantic simulated a return to ice age conditions (mostly by shutting down the gulf stream) for that region, for about 1000 years, but it abated & we warmed up. How it will turn out this time - who knows???
-- CO2 release ‘after’ a warm-up is the result of more rapid decomposition (mostly plants - & more fires from the warming, just as we are seeing now), however the CO2, Or Methane, or some other gasses often started the warm-up in the first place (and it doesn’t take much of an increase to start the feedback cycle). CO2 is a very well documented heat retention gas. Methane is 20 times worse and is apparently being released from the 'Permafrost Melt' (god help us if that one gets going), that is currently going on in the Arctic, along with the sea-ice melt.
Posted by: Mr Reality | December 21, 2008 4:05 PM
Then, write your letter to your Congresspersons to tell them you won't pay the "tax" they are developing to keep us from using energy. Remember - Gore did NOT win the Nobel Prize in Science - but in Peace. It was awarded by 5 individuals known for their Green ideas.
Posted by: Linda Mae | December 21, 2008 1:05 AM
You are always easy to spot because no matter what post name you use you are always the only one on here who will defend the indefensible Bush/Republican action and you're always the only one on here who will continue to push an Obama/Dem scandal/controversy no matter how insane and how many people have already debunked it.
.
.
"You would think, in the wake of such stark and conclusive findings, that the White House would at least offer some small gesture to signal its concern about the impending crisis. It's not every day, after all, that the leading scientists from 120 nations come together and agree that the entire planet is about to go to hell. But the Bush administration has never felt bound by the reality-based nature of science - especially when it comes from international experts. So after the report became public in February, Vice President Dick Cheney took to the airwaves to offer his own, competing assessment of global warming."
"We're going to see a big debate on it going forward," Cheney told ABC News, about "the extent to which it is part of a normal cycle versus the extent to which it's caused by man." What we know today, he added, is "not enough to just sort of run out and try to slap together some policy that's going to 'solve' the problem."
.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/15148655/the_secret_campaign_of_president_george_bushs_administration_to_deny_global
.
"Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today."
"Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)."
"Travel expenses and additional payments were also offered."
.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2007/feb/02/frontpagenews.climatechange
.
Posted by: HopeNChange | December 21, 2008 6:07 PM
Thirty years of global warming on a planet that is 300 million years old - now that is statistically significant.
.
This is a farce - the libs know as now they have changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change".
Posted by: Terry | December 21, 2008 7:36 PM
First off – I believe Global Warming is a very serious “Very Real- Man Induced” problem.
However, I do not believe the US is to blame.
Posted by: Mr Reality | December 20, 2008 4:05 PM
Sorry to disappoint you Mr Reality but the US is the cause of 25% of the green house gas causing global warming. Thats a huge percentage considering the US is only 4.54% of the overall world population!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | December 21, 2008 9:50 PM
This is a farce - the libs know as now they have changed the name from "global warming" to "climate change".
Posted by: Terry | December 21, 2008 7:36 PM
I'm shocked!....not.
Terry, the deadest of the deadender wingnuts, continues to spew the debunked winger talking points even after being on the losing end of back to back landslide elections.
Terry, did I ever tell you about the time I saw a human footprint inside the picture of a dinosaur's footprint? It's true, the Bush administration said so....
Posted by: Haywood Jablome | December 22, 2008 1:43 AM
Terry, once again you show your ignorance. Global Warming and Climate Change are two very different meanings.
Global Warming is the overall warming of the planet, based on average temperature over the entire surface and Climate Change reflects the changes in regional climate characteristics, including temperature, humidity, rainfall, wind, and severe weather events.
The Polar bears are eating each other out of starvation because the ice caps are melting and they cant get to their food sources. I cant wait for the day when you republicans start eating each other into extinction as well!
Perhaps when all the ice caps and glaciers melt Noah will build an arc to save all you nay sayers? Ha!
Posted by: Scot S. Blakeley | December 22, 2008 8:23 AM
It's entertaining (and a tad ironic) to read Al Gore's rantings as I shiver in the icy grip of manmade global warming.
Posted by: Vast Right Wing Conspirator | December 22, 2008 2:42 PM
There's an interesting article in the knowledge@wpcarey website about the energy challenge for the Obama Administration regarding the economics of going greener. Any thoughts on the article?
Posted by: Emil Robles | December 22, 2008 3:30 PM