Obama says he will “restore science to its rightful place.” All very nice and anti-oogedy-boogedy. I’ll believe Obama’s self-congratulatory rhetoric, however, when he stands up to the radical green lobby and considers the case for nuclear energy, a power source conspicuously absent from his inaugural list of PC alternative fuels.
On the oogedy-boogedy front, Texas is once again debating the teaching of evolution.
Amen to that!
If the choice is between putting up with a conspicuous absence of nuclear energy vs. what we’ve been getting over the last 8 years, I’ll take the former over the latter, any day. (Of course, since Bush didn’t do squat on /nook-u-ler/, either, that’s not saying much.) I, too, however, would like to see nuclear as a part of getting the oil monkey off our backs.
I thought Obama’s science comment was a bit gratuitous. Let’s wait and see what happens when his ox is gored, i.e. the mean IQ by race data comes in. Then we’ll really see what “place” science has.
Grant Canyon, I disagree that Bush did “squat” on nuclear energy. In 2005 he signed an act that made investment more likely in new plants and expansion in older plants easier.
He certainly didn’t do as much as I would have liked and got too easily sidetracked by corn-based ethanol, but to say he did nothing is wrong.
@Ivan Karamazov
I think you need to understand science better if you think the current research on mean IQ by race will cause Obama to abandon it.
Firing up a nuke isn’t a very easy thing to do. It takes years of planning and design, plus a number of regulatory hurdles. It also takes billions of dollars. Add to that the fact that this country has lost a lot of skill and experience when it comes to nuclear plants because of the practical moratorium we’ve been under. A guy who wrote home-brewing guides joked that he started his new career when his job as a nuclear engineer became that of an unclear engineer.
Now before starting down this path, any company thinking of building a nuke needs some sort of assurance that they can keep going, regardless of who’s in the White House. This is sort of why Obama’s blessing is crucial. If both Democrats and Republicans are firmly behind it, then investors can get behind it.
As a college physics major and now an engineer, I picked up his science comment. It strikes me that with his popularity and cool factor, Obama could really wipe out the republican brand by exposing it as the home of the backwards and obscurantist. Like the Texas anti-evolution hoopla. He could tell people, ‘do you want to be _that_? Or do you want to join with my program?”
Polichinello, I would think that all the factors you list above are very good reasons to think that massive nuke projects are not going to be a practical solution to help reduce greenhouse gas emissions quickly. It seems that, to the extent that it is possible, smaller renewables projects are far more likely to produce energy faster — the technology is simpler, the siting is easier, and the time from start of project to generated power is much shorter. In addition, most renewable generation is based essentially on small modular units, such as wind turbines and solar collectors, that scale easily, and respond to economies of scale in terms of pricing. That’s just not the case with conventional nuclear (although some newer approaches, such as Hyperion’s nuclear “battery”, might also achieve efficiencies from mass production, but those are all also a long way from coming to market).
I don’t see what’s so bad about teaching creationism (Intelligent Design). Sure, it’s a sham, but it’s nowhere near as harmful as most of the doctrine of the Church of Left-Liberalism which gets implanted in the little schoolkids’ brains every hour of every day. Suppose, worst case, that somebody actually grows up believing that evolution is false. He can be a physicist, a lawyer, an engineer, a plumber, pretty much any profession you pick except maybe biologist or biochemist, without any detriment. Ditto on his ability to be a good citizen, neighbor, parent, spouse…. What’s the big deal?
As someone on the secular right, I’m much more bothered by the state’s actions against the autonomy of local school districts when the teaching of evolution gets to the courts. I don’t expect to convince anyone here that teaching ID is no big deal. Let me ask a question though. For those who believe in following the US Constitution’s plain textual meaning, including the First, Fourteenth, and especially Tenth Amendments, does it matter at all that public (government) schools have the constitutional right to teach pretty much whatever they want, including even that the words of the Bible are literally true if that’s what the local authorities decide? Should those of you who believe in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution (as opposed to a “living Constitution”), the interpretative mode favored by conservatives over the past few decades, support the constitutional right of schools to teach something you don’t believe in?
I don’t see what’s so bad about teaching creationism (Intelligent Design).
I’ll be short and blunt. It is outright lies and falsehood. It has no basis in reality. You should ask yourself the question: “what is so bad about teaching 2+2 = 5?”
Now, you could say the same about Alchemy and Astrology, for example.
However, Creationism is worse than that. Intellectually and psychologically, it compares with Holocaust Denial. Both have insidious agendas driving them – in the case of HD, anti-semitism and fascism. In the case of creationism, it s a religious movement that seeks to force its beliefs upon everyone else through the wedge of the educational system. After creationism, it’ll be hanging gays and beating up on unmarried mothers or divorcees.
He can be a physicist, a lawyer, an engineer, a plumber, pretty much any profession you pick except maybe biologist or biochemist, without any detriment. Ditto on his ability to be a good citizen, neighbor, parent, spouse…. What’s the big deal?
Do you want your plumber to be someone who thinks that the solution to your pipes leaking isn’t to plug the holes but rather to pray?
Should those of you who believe in a textualist interpretation of the Constitution (as opposed to a “living Constitution”), the interpretative mode favored by conservatives over the past few decades, support the constitutional right of schools to teach something you don’t believe in?
Would you support the right of schools to teach a curriculum based upon the Turner Diairies? Or Mein Kampf? Or the Hamas Charter?
Alright, I’m a Brit. We have the National Curriculum here (instituted by Mrs Thatcher!) which, given we’re talking about the education of children here, who cannot differentiate between truth and falsehood, even I, despite my anarcho-capitalist leanings, think is pretty much an unqualified good thing.
Ploni Almoni — wow. If public schools teach my children something that is ‘wrong’ and will narrow the choice of occupations, then, yeah I’m concerned.
Law is especially a concern. If law has not evolved, what has? How can an engineer thoroughly understand the consequences of his work if he doesn’t understand the forces of nature — one of which is evolution.
I’m willing to give you plumber as a profession not needing to understand evolution. Bookkeeper too. Maybe. But I’m not sure that evolution didn’t play a role in the understanding of those professions as well.
[Obama says he will “restore science to its rightful place.”]
These are code words for support of Climate Change political action. For a politician, the “rightful place” for science is to be behind and support his political aspirations, and perhaps his philosophical and ideological beliefs. Pro-global warming science promotes increased influence for collectivists. Obama will support that. Science, which questions the current Climate Change dogma, is unlikely to get much support.
Stand up to the religious right and pulverizing them out of existence thank . No need to keep a bunch of creepy zealots who are doing much more harm to our party than the radical greenies. The Republican party is finished. The large numbers it once enjoyed is over. We lost our way. A sea of grumpy old white men is who we are – largely rural, largely uneducated, largely creepy. Sad day.
The potential harm of teaching ID in a few scattered districts is negligible when compared with the economic consequences of Left’s dogma of climate change.
Obama’s next line in the speech is: We will harness the sun and the winds and the soil to fuel our cars and run our factories.
I know nothing about the subject but I do harbor a memory of Obama saying very good things about nuclear energy in the debates. I use the word “harbor” however because the fact that you didn’t mention this provides me with some doubt about the accuracy of that memory. After all I know very little about the subject and care about it even less so there’s no real reason for it to have made too much of an impression on me (though I’d still give 2:1 odds on the accuracy of this memory).
It seems that, to the extent that it is possible, smaller renewables projects are far more likely to produce energy faster — the technology is simpler, the siting is easier, and the time from start of project to generated power is much shorter.
They are quicker to set up, true, but how much of the gap can they make up. I’m told Denmark get’s 20% of its energy from wind, and that’s good, real good. After all, nukes now provide something like 30%(?) of our power. But we’ll still have another 50%(?) or so to go.
I know nothing about the subject but I do harbor a memory of Obama saying very good things about nuclear energy in the debates.
His position sort of parses out to be similar to his position on capital punishment: He’s for it, unless it means actually, you know, doing it.
Let’s see:
The Europeans’ population will crash after 2020.
Russia will be screwed when her oil start to run out in a decade or two.
USA is embracing iron-age superstitions – As if a total financial meltdown of USA-UK Anglosphere civilization wasn’t bad enough.
And the Yanks just voted in a socialist government a month after tne NeoLeninist Bushevic October Revolution. (They quasi-nationalised the financial system – one of the key Leninist platforms).
Question to Self:
Can superstitious increasingly-socialist America beat ultrasecular increasingly-capitalist China?
Answer to Self:
Make sure my kids, if any, speak fluent Mandarin in the Chinese century.
(Sorry, just thinking out loud here, on a hot summer night in Australia)
Stephen Chu (the new Energy Secretary) did say some rather positive things about nuclear energy during his confirmation hearing. One quote: “The point here is that nuclear power, as I said before, is going to be an important part of our energy mix. It’s 20% of our electricity generation today, but it’s 70% of the carbon-free portion of electricity today. And it is baseload. So I think it is very important that we push ahead.”
More here:
http://neinuclearnotes.blogspot.com/2009/01/steven-chu-energy-secretary.html
Oh. That was for you, Ploni Almoni.
I wonder if Obama’s implicit call to take “politics out of science” will apply to the Left’s faith-based anthropogenic warming claims as well.
Let’s see. 1) Antarctica is cooling = evidence of human-induced climate change. 2) Antarctica is warming = evidence of human-induced climate change.
Looks like a text-book case of unfalsifiability to me!
The left has its religious impulses too, so I doubt the Secular Savior will be true friend to science. He has his faith-based commitments, just like Bush did.
Ploni,
Even without federal issues many states have state Constitutions that have language nearly identical to the First Amendment. So even if you believe that the First Amendment doesn’t apply to the states at all there’s still a massive violation of rights going on.
Moreover, teaching intelligent design or variants thereof have other negative effects. Students get the impression that science is wrong or shouldn’t be taken seriously at all. This spills over to all areas. And when the people teaching are teaching Young Earth Creationism (which many all attempts to teach some form of creationism amount to) they don’t just mess up all the biological sciences but also geology and astronomy and physics.
Furthermore, we want people to be informed citizens able to participate in the democratic process without simply further damaging the signal to noise ratio. Many current issues that involve science require a basic understanding of evolution to understand in detail. The most obvious such issue is antibiotic resistance and what regulations we should have about use of antibiotics with farm animals. To fully understand the issues with stem cells one needs a very basic understanding of evolution. These are but a few examples.
Teaching creationism in schools violates rights, damages our children, makes them unable to effectively participate in the democratic process, and gives them substantial disadvantages for competing on the world stage.
Suppose, worst case, that somebody actually grows up believing that evolution is false. He can be a physicist, a lawyer, an engineer, a plumber, pretty much any profession you pick except maybe biologist or biochemist, without any detriment. Ditto on his ability to be a good citizen, neighbor, parent, spouse
Totally correct Ploni. This is why it’s so hard to convince the general public of the correctness of evolution. I think somewhere between 55 and 60% of Americans think it’s false.
Not believing in evolution has no impact on day to day life, but it does give people a warm, fuzzy feeling inside.
Anyone who is trained in Science will know that the fundamental arguement of ID/Creationism is that – because Science can’t explain everything there must an ID type solution. The fear the religious crowd have is that actually Science is increasingly eroding the ability of the other arguements. What I always find disapointing is that the arguements surround life sciences – probably because almost anyone can sort of get their head round it and there are loads of examples which can be conveniently misconstrued. Interestingly if Science started to use the Physics/Geological arguements it is virtually impossible for ID to rebut a) because the non scientist can’t understand it b) its actually very rigorous.
I usually use the arguement if God does exist he must have set this all up billions of years ago and pressed the start button and left. There is no justification for his continuous involvement given the many horrible things that happen. It tends to lead to the Alien seeding crowd jumping in though.
God is alive and well and working on less ambitious projects basically
I’d call myself ‘radical green’, and I have no problem with nuclear energy. (Intelligently and responsibly used, which is admittedly unlikely, but then I don’t think our societies are capable of using fire responsibly, and I don’t oppose fire either).
I do consider it a stopgap measure that permits us to put off finding a real solution to our energy- and resource-addictions, though.
Fiscal conservatism doesn’t need to apply only to money. We need to learn to live within our means — that includes all of our resources.
@A-Bax
The denial of the science of climate change over the last 8 years is partly why Obama made the statement he did. The science is in. The debate (at least the scientific debate) is over. Humans are having a significant effect on global climate.
It is interesting that just this week a poll was released which showed that the more a scientist’s work dealt with the climate data, the more likely he or she was to think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures.
-Among the general public, it is about 55%.
-Among Earth Scientists who don’t do climatology, it is about 77%.
-Among Earth Scientists who are active publishers of material in peer-reviewed journals on all subjects, the number is about 87%.
-Among Earth Scientists who are active publishers of material in peer-reviewed journals on climate change, the number is about 90%.
-Among climatologists who are active publishers of material in peer-reviewed journals on climate change, the number is about 97%.
Basically, the more one actually reviews, examines and understands the data, the more certain one is that human activity is having a significant part in raising global temperatures.
The denial of the science of climate change over the last 8 years is partly why Obama made the statement he did. The science is in. The debate (at least the scientific debate) is over. Humans are having a significant effect on global climate.
Further to this, I think that no matter what your views upon climate change – personally, I think it is happening, but that the “watermelon” environmentalists (green on the outside, red on the inside) are using it as their own wedge issue – dumping CO2 into the atmosphere in the quantites that we do it in is unqualifiedly a bad thing, and this alone should be cause enough to switch to alternative energy sources as soon as we can (nuclear fission at the moment, fusion in the long run).
There’s clearly a politicization of the science when it comes to how to deal with global warming. But the science of human affect on global temperature norms is pretty solid, and no matter how many stories drudge prints about how cold it is outside and isn’t that crazy?, that doesn’t really change the actual issue (which is much more complicated than “is it cold outside today? Did we get a record snowfall somewhere? Then global warming must be wrong!”
I’m all for nukes. The technology on modern nuke plants is generations away from anything most Americans are familiar with. Most of our existing reactors are several generations behind the sorts of designs we’d see today, which are incredibly safe and even have far more easily recycled/disposed of wastes.
“There’s clearly a politicization of the science when it comes to how to deal with global warming.”
That’s true. But, then again, it can hardly be the fault of the USC football team runs up the score if UCLA stays in the locker room. The proposals being discussed and consdiered are those proposed by the left, because the right isn’t done denying that the problem exists.
Grant Canyon:
We’ll just have to disagree, it seems. FWIW though, there are plenty of scientists who disagree with the Al Gore, UN crowd:
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.printable&pageId=83323
I’ll leave it at that, as we could throw links at each other all day, no doubt. Let me only say that the veracity of a scientific theory is not determined by “consensus”, but, among other things, by explanatory power and predictive success (both of which are sorely lacking in the Human-Caused-Global-Warming theory). There are better ideas out there, anyway (solar activity as the primary driver of earth’s climate.) The science is most definitely not “in”, so to speak, and the debate is far from “over”.
But, we don’t need to waste time going back & forth on it, as you’re a smart guy and I’m sure you’re well aware of much that I would say, as I’m well aware of much that (I suspect) you would say.
The invaluable site “climate debate daily” dot-com (all squinched together), is particularly useful here.
Cheers.
The proposals being discussed and consdiered are those proposed by the left, because the right isn’t done denying that the problem exists.
That’s a good point. I think the skepticism was justified in the 90s and even into the early 00s, but we’ve long since hit a tipping point as far as the knowledge is concerned. That doesn’t mean the alarmists are right, or that the proposals are any good, but claiming that tossing all the CO2 in the air that we’re doing has no noticeable effect is just silly.
Well, this thread has taken an abrupt turn. The theory of anthropolgical global warming is based upon the assumption that climate is a positive feedback mechanism. Carbon dioxide is a weak greenhouse gas and as more is added to the atmosphere, the returns are limited, such that possible warming due to CO2 is limited to around 2 deg C. This is in the IPCC report.
Like I said, the warming predicted by the IPCC comes from assuming climate is dominated by positive feedback. Really? That’s a rather dubious assumption as almost all natural process are dominated by negative feedback.
the more a scientist’s work dealt with the climate data, the more likely he or she was to think that human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures
In another useless poll, it was found that the more somebody reads the bible, the more likely he is to believe in the existance of God.
“In another useless poll, it was found that the more somebody reads the bible, the more likely he is to believe in the existance of God.”
Ah yes, because doing actual research into a subject, pouring over data, learning how extremely complex things like climate function… is exactly like reading a holy book that demands faith.
learning how extremely complex things like climate function…
Yes, that is the point, isn’t is? How confident are you that we’ve got it all figured out? Here’s a simple question, if temperatures go up 2 deg C, will there be more clouds or more water vapor? The answer to that question is absolutely critical to any discussion of climate change. Perhaps you know the answer or know somebody who does?
“That’s a good point. I think the skepticism was justified in the 90s and even into the early 00s, but we’ve long since hit a tipping point as far as the knowledge is concerned.”
I’m not sure I totally agree with you regarding the skepticism, but solely on the point that it was mostly based on rejecting the (perceived) negative consequences (mostly financial and economic) if the science were proved right.
“Here’s a simple question…”
I’m willing to provisionally accept that those people who are actual climatologists studying this stuff would take the water cycle into account. But, if I’m wrong, go ahead and publish your work on the question. Earn fame, fortune, etc., etc.
I’m willing to provisionally accept that those people who are actual climatologists studying this stuff would take the water cycle into account
Do a google search for “Do higher temps lead to more clouds”, the first website that pops up is the Environmental Literacy Council, I have no idea who they are, but here’s what their site says:
Are you sure the debate is over?
“Are you sure the debate is over?”
Again, I’m feel fairly certain that those who study the climate for a living have taken something as simple as the water cycle into account in making their opinions. If something on the website of a K Street policy group was grounds for serious concern, I doubt that the overwhelming majority of the scientists would be certain.
And, geez, what do you know?? On that same page, the Environmental Literacy Council establish that, yes, the scientists are investigating this area.
“However, measurements made by NASA’s Earth Radiation Budget Experiment satellite indicate that clouds could likely have a small net cooling effect.”
Being professional scientists, and all, no doubt their taking this data into consideration in forming their opinions and still think that humanity’s had a substanital role in climate change.
So, yeah, the debate’s over.
To the best of my knowledge there is no public school district in the United States which omits evolution from its curriculum. The so-called Creationist schools you’re all hearing about are really just schools that mention the debate over the verifiability of the evolution theories and might offer some Bible study courses as well. Even Christians want evolution to be taught in high school because a basic knowledge of biology is required for many science majors in universities. And you can find Creationist teachers in probably just about every school district, and universities too.
I really doubt that Creationist beliefs are harmful to job prospects. One would have to assume that most of the people graduating from Christian universities are not getting jobs or are all working for near minimum wage.
To the best of my knowledge there is no public school district in the United States which omits evolution from its curriculum.
sorry dude, you don’t know what you’re talking about. these decisions are often taken by teachers depending on local contingencies. my high school biology teacher stopped teaching evolution early on in his career because the cost vs. benefit was totally out of control; most of the kids weren’t that interested, and a non-trivial subset had parents who would file complaints and objections which would take up his marginal time (most of them were totally frivolous and the administration was always on his side, but they still resulted in paper work and “meetings” to convince parents he wasn’t anti-christian). this is a common occurrence in districts where a non-trivial proportion of students are creationists or from creationist backgrounds.
this is a common occurrence in districts where a non-trivial proportion of students are creationists or from creationist backgrounds.
This is a practical reason for letting these parents have some of their tax money back to put their kids in a private academy. The savings in bureaucratic hassles alone would probably yield a profit.
That seems an unnecessary solution, though. It’s not like the private academy is more likely to be able to teach evolution than the public school was, and you get rid of the complaints more easily by just not teaching evolution.
The problem with both solutions is that we’d rather not let these parents keep their children from learning.
It’s not like the private academy is more likely to be able to teach evolution than the public school was…
Who cares? It’s their kids, their choice, their problem.
The problem with both solutions is that we’d rather not let these parents keep their children from learning.
Instead you prefer a situation where they keep everybody’s kids from learning?
David Hume,
I don’t think American people understand the problem.
Even now USA can’t educate all the scientists and engineers it needs. I get the impression that every second scientist is foreign-born. High-IQ Americans choose law, they choose business. Science has low-status in your country. You culture despises nerds. You revere singers and actors and sport’s stars, supermodels, business people. Above all, so many of your religious leaders bad-mouth science at every opportunity.
Confucianism/Taoism is different. The scholar is revered. They are the saints, the immortals, the Xiān (hsien). Marxism has added to this, not reduced it. A Marxist state is a technocracy. Engineers dominate the government. Not lawyers like America.
You only get away with this because of low taxes, which allows higher elite income, and the fact that you are still a leader in many fields. And because your main competitors are Westerners with similar values to you.
Wait till you are number two in everything. And your taxes rise to pay for trillion dollar deficits. After President Obama, you will have a welfare state like Europe. Maybe like Sweden LOL. After inflation hits in a year or two, everyone will be in higher tax-scales. You think you can double base-money and not get high inflation? President Obama and Speaker Pelosi will have no difficulty funding their schemes. High inflation and progressive income-tax will solve the problem.
A decade or two from now, people will go to Beijing. USA will be the ones with the brain-drain. Even the few scientists you manage to train will go to Beijing.
That’s what it’s like for developing countries now. All their elite dream of going to America.
Nuclear power in China
@Daniel Dare
Profound! ◄Dave►
Daniel, I’m not sure your sense of the US is correct. You seem to have the perception that we’re all about rock stars and cheeseburgers, which is the standard sort of stereotype a lot of cultures who have only really been exposed to our rock stars and cheeseburgers, but not our way of life, have. But the reality is that people still come to the US to learn science: the fact that we have people coming in from all over the world is a strength, not a weakness, and while we are often accused of xenophobia, the reality is that smart hard-working people are always welcome in the US and prized in ways that they just aren’t in other countries, in part because we have a truly multicultural society. China is still an incredibly xenophobic and closed society, and its still intellectually paralyzed in a lot of ways that the US is not. I honestly hope that changes: and if it does, then China has every reason and right to become a major world center. But it’s not on that path yet.
And you say that “Marxism has added to this, not reduced it. A Marxist state is a technocracy. Engineers dominate the government. Not lawyers like America.”
But from what I’ve seen, the “technocracy” in China is still a mass of cut corners, corruption, and government propaganda covering up anything that goes wrong.
Bad
Yes it is a strength. As long as it lasts. The problem will come if the flow reverses.
But from what I’ve seen, the “technocracy” in China is still a mass of cut corners, corruption, and government propaganda covering up anything that goes wrong.
I agree. Although if you read Chinese media, there is a huge focus on corruption and, I don’t know Bad. It seems to me that corrupt CEOs are more likely to get the death penalty in China and more likely to get to keep their share options in USA.
Maybe I’m wrong but we are yet to see the people who rated garbage as AAA and so on get their due. Your economy has been sunk in part by corruption in high places. Some of it in regulatory agencies that didn’t do their jobs. Also your state sector is about to expand hugely. I wonder if it will be corruption free? Do you feel optimistic?
Xenophobia? Well I think you would be surprised how many western scientists/business people already work in China. Generally cities are more progressive everywhere than the countryside.
“But the reality is that people still come to the US to learn science: the fact that we have people coming in from all over the world is a strength, not a weakness”
That’s like saying that the fact that we import massive amounts of oil to fuel our society is a strength and not a weakness.
I second Daniel Dare, and I’ve lived in America all my life.
@Caledonian
I have lived in eight countries and sixteen States in this one, and I concur. An infinitely better general education is available in all manner of countries. Yes, when it comes to the sciences, coming to America for a post-secondary education is frequently advantageous; but when it comes to making use of it once attained, returning home or moving to Asia where the action is, makes much more sense than floundering in this rapidly eroding, anti-producer, and increasingly victim-centric socialist society. ◄Dave►