It’s official. A date and time have been set for a presidential science debate: April 18 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, four days before the Pennsylvania primary.
Now it’s up to the candidates to agree to address a range of science and technology issues that are vital to the nation’s economic future.
For example, as debate organizer Shawn Otto points out, “Science and technology have driven 50 percent of our growth in GDP over the last 50 years, and yet by 2010, 90 percent of all scientists and engineers will live in Asia. That’s a huge fundamental change the next president is going to have to be dealing with, and yet nobody’s talking about it.â€
91 Comments
There is no doubt that Barrack should win this one. He will be the “science President”. Science should be a top priority.
Science certainly has not been a priority of President Bush. Rather, undermining science HAS been a priority of Bush/Cheney, and the Republican-controlled Congress for 7 years was complicit in that effort. Read the Republican War on Science, if you have any doubt about this.
The majority of the world’s population lives in Asia. Perhaps the 90 percent of the World’s populations thing a numbers game.
Sure, if 90 percent of the population is in asia.
From the ScienceDebate2008 site:
and
What’s needed now is for each of us to contact the campaigns and encourage the candidates to participate:
Email(Info@barackobama.com) and call Obama at (866) 675-2008
Email(Information@explorehuckabee.com) and call Huckabee at (800) 871-6320
Email(Information@ExploreMcCain.com) and call McCain at (703) 418-2800
Email(info@hillaryclinton.com) and call Clinton at (703) 469-2008
. . . and why those candidates were invited:
“The next president of the United States of America will control a $150 billion annual research budget, 200,000 scientists, and 38 major research institutions and all their related labs. This president will shape human endeavors in space, bioethics debates, and the energy landscape of the 21st century.”
“During the past seven years of the Bush administration, America has been subject to what can only be called antiscientific governance. Scientists have been ignored, threatened, suppressed, and censored across agencies, across areas of expertise, and across issues. Policies have gone forward repeatedly without adequate scientific input and sometimes in spite of it, and have subsequently backfired.”
“Along with the neglect of science has come a broader neglect of expertise, competence, and even functional government. These are, perhaps, matters not so disparate. For science doesn’t merely provide a way of expanding knowledge of the world. It doesn’t just provide answers to pressing questions; it changes the conversation itself. Science—and the broader way of thinking that comes with it—trains its adherents and practitioners to relish the very act of questioning for its own sake, of figuring out what’s true and false, of determining what works and what fails.”
http://seedmagazine.com/news/2007/10/dr_president.php
Science vs. evolution is eloquently analyzed by a JPL scientist when each new study and/or reported finding is made public at http://www.creationsafaris.com/news. Discover your world!
I’ll expect all of the candidates to appear.
Can someone get John McCain a bib?
MHO: The problem isn’t the presidency, it is parents. You look at folks like Vaughn Tolle and his kids. They seem to be doing very well and attending some top notch universities. The bulk of the folks I know have kids that would be rejected from community colleges.
The kids are spoiled and lazy. The parents refuse to hear that and instead battle the schools to give little Johnny partial credit or whatever. The end result is a kid that knows mommy & daddy will back him no matter how poorly they do.
In order to deal with this, the schools dumb down curriculum. To appease the parents and to stay in line with NCLB and other testing indicators. The end result is a few generations of lazy dumb kids.
Now you look at the kids in China. Year round school. They are doing in 9th grade what sophomores in college are failing here. You keep appeasing children and parents you end up with dumb lazy kids.
Parents; get over it. Little johny just may be a stupid a$$hole. Get over it and correct it.
Are y’all actually supporting the government becoming more involved in education? Look at NCLB. How’s that working so far?
Oh and for just ONE debate or speaking appearance?
Obama should not be allowed to use the words, “change”, “hope”, or “together”.
Yeah I know it is a science debate. But Barack could use a little vocabulary and content exercise.
My concern is not with educating enough scientists and engineers to run our economy - I believe that if the jobs are there peopel will get the education. My concern has more to do with basic scientific literacy among the ‘non-science’ public.
This parallels other illiteracy issues - how many people, for example, could find Tanzania or Kenya on a map? Or could have found Afghanistan before 9/11?
The best part of No Child Left Behind is its noble sounding name; it actually is leaving many children behind. Even Kennedy knows it needs, at minimum, a major overhaul. But bush, he just screams to reauthorize it NOW. He has no other domestic accomplishment and isn’t smart enough to see that this one is a failure.
Sol, did you forget you are supposed to be afraid, be very afraid? You’re not to actually think about Americans unless the thinking is how to keep them safe (while putting them in greater danger) — be afraid, be very afraid!
We will have a new president in only 11 months, 3 days, 20 hours and progress can begin January 20, 2009. There is MUCH to do! Starting with a president who is capable of critical thinking we will make progress.
Linda,
My worries; McLame – “I’m not too good on the economy, but I did buy Greenspan’s book.” Kinda sounds like a holiday inn express commercial doesn’t it? The economy is one of the most important issues on the table right now. But McLame is “not too good” on it. Yeah, in that I am very afraid.
Clinton and Obama have some very high hopes for America and have a lot of social programs they would like to instill. The problem is they don’t explain how they will fund these programs. In our economic down turn I think raising taxes will only hurt the economy. Use Michigan as an example. Our local economy is in the crapper. Granholm raised taxes to fund social programs. Now we are worse and there is no end in sight. Again, on that I am afraid… very afraid.
Sol - expenditures that get spent in the economy do not necessarily cause a downturn. Consider road construction: we get the twin effects of hiring the people who do the work and reducing my maintenence costs for my car. Funding education and research can make our economy more productive and thereby stimulate it beyond the direct expenditures inside the economy.
Sol - expenditures that get spent in the economy do not necessarily cause a downturn.
The point being, where does the money initially come from. I agree if we had a bottomless pit of funding, by all means, spend away. We have very little to spend though and our debt is intolerable. I can’t get behind a program the puts us further into debt.
Funding education and research can make our economy more productive and thereby stimulate it beyond the direct expenditures inside the economy.
I agree only if the funding of the above program(s) is (are) diverted from (an) existing program(s). The money has to come from somewhere and I do not support higher taxes and/or more debt.
Fer instance, if we pulled our troops out of Iraq, how much of that money could be diverted to the programs you suggest?
I think the Eagle had better watch it… we have two good discussions going on in two threads.
Budget predictions are fraught with uncertainty. To make this point, see these three projections of deficit spending from 2007 to 2017:
http://www.facingup.org/why-it-matters/facts-figures
(you have to scroll down to near the bottom of the page).
The most optimistic numbers come from the CBO (Congressional Budget Office) - they are required by
law to assume that current laws will remain in place - such as the scheduled suspension of the Bush Tax cuts for the wealthiest of Americans in 2010 - note the surge after 2010.
Second most optimistic is Whitehouse Office of Budget and Management. They assume that the tax cuts will remain in effect, but have more optimistic growth models than do the other two. The president is the main customer for this group - so guess how they see reality?
The least optimistic is from the “Concord Coalition” which purposefully enters in political realities such as the tax cuts will be continued, spending will outpace inflation, the war expenses will come down (but slowly), and the congress will limit the unpopular Alternative Minimun Tax, etc. Their picture doesn’t look so good.
It is actually past time to start getting serious about our Federal budget crisis - a good place to start (in terms of understanding the situation) is this book:
http://www.publicagenda.org/
It is possible to find economists who say that we can click our heels together three times and repeat three times “There’s no place like home” - and our economy will be okay.
In reading the above book, I am becoming more convinced we will have to raise taxes AND reduce spending. There are no easy OR painless answers. I am also considering heresey: Maybe we need to consider allowing more immigration to this country to add to our tax payer base to help with the flood of boomers who will be retiring soon. This would be like adding an artifical generation. Probably a discussion for a different thread.
Mr. Davis,
I couldn’t agree more. Clinton and Obama have some bright dreams and around 200-300 billion increase in spending, but I have not yet seen where this money will come from.
McLame wants 100 more years in Iraq, but does not show how he can fund that. The only candidate still running that wants to reduce spending is Ron Paul.
I’m glad folks are calling this a crisis now. It is indeed. And the only candidate who has the knowledge and an actual plan to salvage our economy is labeled a kook. Great job America. Nice priorities.
Mr. Davis,
How about we pull our troops out of Iraq?
Pull our troops off foreign soil?
Eliminate the Fed BOE?
Eliminate Homeland Security?
Quit funding warrantless wiretaps?
There are a plethora of areas we can reduce spending and get back on track w/o raising taxes. Raising taxes has proven time and time again to be devastating on the economy. As a current model, look at Michigan.
“We will have a new president in only 11 months, 3 days, 20 hours and progress can begin January 20, 2009. There is MUCH to do! Starting with a president who is capable of critical thinking we will make progress.”
Happy days are here! Just as soon as MY perfect candidate gets into office, the world will be rosy again. The sky is the limit to what I can imagine will happen.
I won’t say anything specific as to what I think the next president will actually do however, because I don’t want my rosy expectations to fall woefully short. After all, my life ebbs and flows depending on whomever is President.
I don’t know about anyone else, but I’m voting for a president who has leadership, courage of his convictions, and the ability to handle a myriad of problems facing our nation.
I am not voting on which candidate can quote
Einsteins Theory of Relativity.
A science debate? How about a freakin policy debate? Let’s hear how the candidates will correct the economic down turn. What exactly are the tax models they want? What background do the candidates have of the impact of taxation? How are they going to balance the budget and pay for the programs that already exist without borrowing? How much longer are they going to keep borrowing to keep us in an insane war?
Amway
Which candidate has leadership, courage of his convictions, and the ability to handle a myriad of problems facing our nation. ?
It sure isn’t McLame. He has already stated “I’m not that good on the economy, but I bought Greenspan’s book…”
And Hillary and Obama? They want to spend 200-300 billion more per year. I’m curious, which candidate did you have in mind?
” I am becoming more convinced we will have to raise taxes AND reduce spending.”
Danger! Danger Steven Davis! You might be lost in space. Did you say, (gasp) ca-ca-ca-c-cut spending?
Revolutionary, but a very basic principle manifested in the household budgets of many Americans.
Now let’s get out that list of expenses and see where we can trim some back. I’m with you.
Sol, I agree it’s NONE OF THE ABOVE.
So now you want these same idiots to engage in a science and technology discussion?
McCain will say, “We need more technology.”
Hillary will say, “Tax the oil companies to fund it.”
Obama will say, “We want change!”
This is pathetic. I am betting those interested in this debate want to get down to creationism v. evolution. Because that is the true litmus test is it not? Never mind foreign and fiscal policy, did we come from God or slime. That is what is really important.
Sol,
“The kids are spoiled and lazy. The parents refuse to hear that and instead battle the schools to give little Johnny partial credit or whatever. The end result is a kid that knows mommy & daddy will back him no matter how poorly they do.”
You sound exactly like that 1st century writer Juvenal. He also wrote about how bad his younger generation was in comparison to his own.
Assuming that’s true, and assuming that the complaints of every generation since are also true, it’s a wonder people still walk around on two legs!
The truth of the matter is that each generation of kids is rotten to the core, but somehow manage to improve enough (except their memories) to feel justified in criticising their kids for doing roughly the same things they did as kids. This generation will improve too (even if they keep the tattoos and piercings) and act just as outraged over their children’s foibles as we did theirs and our parents did ours!
Sol, I’m interested in this debate for much better reasons than you list. Scientific experts have been censured under the current administration. I want a government that values competent expertise. We sure could use a lot of that!
“The children now love luxury; they have bad manners, contempt for
authority; they show disrespect for elders and love chatter in place
of exercise. Children are now tyrants, not the servants of their
households. They no longer rise when elders enter the room. They
contradict their parents, chatter before company, gobble up dainties
at the table, cross their legs, and tyrannize their teachers.
ATTRIBUTION: Attributed to SOCRATES by Plato, according to William L.
Patty and Louise S. Johnson, Personality and Adjustment
Great insight Sol, I’ll bet you are correct.
Who really cares about the environment, it’s abortion, genetic cows, fetal research, and slime that count.
I think the interesting thing with the science debate will be to see who actually knows something about science. While the president will appoint a science adviser, who will he or she pick? Will that person be a toddy for special interests.
Considering health and human services took a major hit in federal research and development spending (-79% from 2001 to 2009), the EPA(-16% between 2001 to 2009),agriculture (-75% the same years), it’s quite obvious this presidents’ science leanings were on the wrong planet. It then should be a priority for the next president to undo bush’s lackadaisical regard for science. This science debate may just give us the info we need to help make that decision on whom to vote for.
O, and Sol? Even slime came from God . . .even if it is over 3 billion years old:-)
Never mind foreign and fiscal policy, did we come from God or slime. That is what is really important
-Sol
Actually, that IS really important. However, do we want the candidates to be well versed with the evidence? Or do we want them to pick a particular scientist that is “objective” and repeat his/her conclusions as absolute fact?
Jed,
Ever watch Super Nanny???
I support the panspermia hypothesis
*ducks*
Scientific experts have been censured under the current administration. I want a government that values competent expertise
-Linda
Scientific experts often disagree with each other. Which “comptetent expertise” do you want your government to value? I notice you often talk in generalities so its impossible to tell what it is you consider to be “competent expertise” or which “experts” are being censored. Oh Well, I guess we can leave that for another thread.
Or do we want them to pick a particular scientist that is “objective” and repeat his/her conclusions as absolute fact?
I am not voting for a scientist. I don’t give a $hit if s/he believes in creationism nor evolution. I don’t give a $hit if s/he knows the difference between a proton and electron.
I want a president that does what s/he says he’ll do. Period. I want a president who is fiscally responsible. I want a president with a proven knowledge of the economy. I want a president that has a sound foreign policy.
If s/he can name all the planets, bully, doesn’t add up to dry $hit to me though if the nation bankrupts or gets mired in yet another war.
“While the president will appoint a science adviser, who will he or she pick?
Will that person be a toddy for special interests?”
Good question, but you won’t really know until the winner is sworn into office and actually makes an appointment. And how much real influence/impact does the science advisor really hold.
Would you include the Global Warming fanatics as a special interest?
Sol, even a cursory study of the history of technology (not to be confused with theorum) shows that technology shapes society, and society shapes technology.
I have to agree with everything else you said about wants for a president, Sol.
Again spot on Sol.
And will they include pluto?
Will they have revised text to:
Mary’s violet eyes make Jack stay up night praying.
ending at nights?
Mary’s violet eyes make Jack stay up night praying
mnemonic? I could never remember any of those. Nwever heard that one. I always had ot visualize the thing (order of planets, spectrum, etc.) and then try to piece together the mnemonic.
Science is cool. It’s like really scientific and stuff. I went to college at KU and studied science. It’s like God to me. We all came from monkeys. I can name the planets. I read a book by Stephen Hawking and now I’m smart.
ghotiphaze, I tried to visualize them too. I then took my pencil and drew the solar system on my tablet because I associated the names with the planets features. Teacher thought I was cheating.
I wish at the time I could have told her, “Give me a break lady, I just learned how to tie my shoes correctly and you want me to KNOW the entire solar system!”
Fish,
I see the prez holding back technology.
One of my favorite stump rants is on Ethanol. I have felt it a straw man from jump and would devastate the nation. Well it is kicking the hell out of Michigan right now.
There are even more subsidies for growing corn for ethanol – the fed stepping in on technology. Ethanol is a freaking straw man that will do far more damage than it ever helps. But the fed steps in and subsidizes it. How has that helped us as a nation?
Now, if the fed stayed the hell out of it and let the free market dictate the chosen technology(ies), then we wouldn’t have these kinds of problems.
When the government interferes with the free market, it seldom is good for any party involved.
And science ranks pretty low on my list right now. I have brothers and sisters in arms in harm’s way. #1 in my book. We are headed for bankruptcy. #2 in my book. Once those have been addressed/resolved, we can get to # 31,238 on the list, like the difference between a proton and an electron. If the government keeps its mitts out of technology, then technology will be free to shape the populace.
I hated that 20 year span when it went …J,S,U,P,N
LOL, Sol, I sympathise. Your #1 & 2 are mine also. But y’know, they’re just gonna lie to your face.
Once…when I was at Space Camp, my teacher thought I was cheating too. Isn’t that awesome? I told her she was in no place to judge me because her great great grandpappy was an amoeba and his daddy was “slime”. Well, she didn’t seem to care. Never mind the lack of anything transcendent. Stupid teachers.
Fish,
Ron Paul does what he says. Got 20 years of voting to back it up.
Who is Ron Paul???
“ca-ca-ca-c-cut spending?
Revolutionary, but a very basic principle manifested in the household budgets of many Americans.”
ESPECIALLY after the cokehead wayward son has crached the car and burned down the house. Sort of like our CiC who has done the same to our country.
Sol, I agree RP is probably the only one with an iota of integrity in the whole bunch, and that’s precisely why I expect him to lose big. Sorry, and it probably bugs me more than it bugs you.
Fish,
It is a travesty. In this era of “change” the only candidate who has a plan to deliver it is blacked out. Kinda make you wonder doesn’t it?
PS
Ron Paul’s budget cut spending $119 billion.
American Way posted February 18, 2008 at 12:39 pm
“Good question, but you won’t really know until the winner is sworn into office and actually makes an appointment. And how much real influence/impact does the science advisor really hold.
Would you include the Global Warming fanatics as a special interest?”
How about appointing a non-scientist, former lawyer and lobbyist for the American Petroleum Institute — who was later hired by ExxonMobil?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_Cooney
“During a March 2007 congressional hearing, Cooney conceded his role in altering reports to downplay the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet’s climate. “My sole loyalty was to the President and advancing the policies of his administration,” he told the United States House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. ”
All of the top candidates agree with the AGW theory. Then there’s Ron Paul, who incorrectly believes that volcanoes are causing the warming.
Cooney conceded his role in altering reports to downplay the adverse effects of man-made emissions on the planet’s climate
For the dozenth time–the results of any study is directly proportional to the desired results of the person funding the study!!
Then there’s Ron Paul, who incorrectly believes that volcanoes are causing the warming.
Here we go again. First, is that all Ron Paul thinks causes CO2 emissions? Second, you have already agreed that volcanoes emit CO2. So just more tripe from cosmos.
Who is it you support for president cosmos?
Oh yeah, I forgot that you don’t answer questions. That might take away from your continued spamming of the blog.
My bad.
rfl, I’m sorry I disappoint you. This is the second thread you’ve called me out specifically to tell me I don’t post to your standards. I guess since our names (nics) are listed first, you could try scrolling over my posts. On this thread, near the top (at 8:25 a.m.) I posted the link to a very comprehensive article I agree with. It states better than I would how I feel about the topic of this thread, and what I hope for in the relationship of POTUS and science.
As to the other thread you had criticism for my posts — I’ll continue to be a very happy, positive person and you choose how you feel. Again, my posts are easy to scroll over.
You do fine, linda.
Actually, very few of your links I’ve actually looked for. Most of what you purport is either already known from personal experience, or veracity is easily deduced with a bit of thought.
Cosmos it just goes to show you, the candidates can say anything they want and/but later appoint anyone they want.
I will not be voting by the candidates knowledge on scientific matters.
Like the commerical says, “starkist doesn’t want tuna with good taste - they want tuna that tastes good.”
“I hated that 20 year span when it went …J,S,U,P,N”
I don’t remember that time period. Did the elementary school teachers even know?
Guess it’s a mute point now.
written on February 11, 1999
On February 11th, Pluto will pass beyond Neptune and become the farthest planet in the solar system. Scientists estimate that the two planets will cross orbits at approximately 5:08 p.m. EST.
Pluto has an unusual orbit which takes it closer to the Sun than Neptune for 20 years out of its 248-year orbit. Pluto has been the eighth planet since February 7th, 1979
I mostly remembered it was in the 80s. About the only time in my life where it came up.
I knew what you were referring to, but didn’t recall the time frame when Pluto passed inside.
But again, I’ll bet students who answered the question with Pluto last, got an “A+”.
Ben,
You bring up an excellent point and something I have often had this to say about:
Before someone should be able to give their opinion on the war in Iraq they should be asked to point Iraq out on a map along with Syria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait.
Just to make sure they were not just lucky on one of them.
If you can’t do that, then your opinion on the war shouldn’t matter.
American Way posted February 18, 2008 at 1:23 pm
“Cosmos it just goes to show you, the candidates can say anything they want and/but later appoint anyone they want.”
Considering Bush’s background, and pro-oil policies while Gov of TX, it was logical that he would appoint someone like Cooney.
Nathan - in that case I will pass with ease. I have a little trouble keeping the 4 smaller ‘Stans’ of the former Soviet Central Asia straight (big Kazakhstan is easy) but can generally find these places. I would also definitely incluse Pakistan and Kashmir to the list.
ghotiphaze posted February 18, 2008 at 1:14 pm
“For the dozenth time–the results of any study is directly proportional to the desired results of the person funding the study!!”
And the “person funding the [AGW] study” is all the people worldwide.
In the 1970’s, humans realized the importance of climate, and governments worldwide started funding climate research.
Ben,
There is this game on facebook which is a world geography game. You have about one minute to point as close as you can on the world map to major cities, islands, countries, and states it will present you with.
You get points on how close you are and have to have a certain number of points to get to the next round.
By round 15 it is giving you names of capitols and islands that most anyone would be hard pressed to find.
I have actually increased my knowledge on world geography quite a bit playing the game.
However, it still amazes me how many people can’t tell the difference between Iowa and Idaho let alone even begin to point to Iraq on a map.
Sad.
I have an Idea too!
Lets have a Presidential debate on guns. This will be a debate where we can focus on the facts about gun ownership and gun use instead of all the emotional bias against them based on fear and a complete lack of understanding.
Line up the candidates, Nathan, yu shoot at them and they all shoot back at you and see who’s the real Marshall Dillon.
Cosmo, I’ve said before I’m not convinced either way on global warming. I just prefer, as I say, follow in the lines of Pascal’s wager. It costs nothing to believe and be wrong, and it costs everything to disbelieve and be wrong. Models don’t sway me too much. Models put too much reliability on Laplace’s demon. Then that dang Heisenburg rears his ugly head!. They can’t even come up with a decent model of a dripping faucet, and they want me to believe in something as complex as climate over a many-year time period? Have you ever heard of iterated functions?
Ahhh, Fish,
The folly of the freshman. Don’t you know how cosmos works yet? Well I guess the best education is trial by fire. Enter the wrath and spittle of cosmos…
That is of course peer reviewed spittle. :-b
Cosmos,
And since then, climate scientists had to feel important and got behind this idea of Global Warming which is now making them bank in research funding and popularity.
No motive there though.
Do you think that if Global Warming were not a “problem” they would be getting as much funding?
No motive there though.
It is only those who question man made Global Warming who have a motive to do so… (yeah right)
Enter the wrath and spittle of cosmos…
Where once I was disgusted, I’m now merely amused.
I’ll shake my head and snicker tomorrow. It’s past nap time. Off to the land of Nod for me (apologies to Hawkeye Pierce, MASH)
TRACY had a good post on this in another thread.
http://blogs.kansas.com/weblog/2008/02/gore-in-2008-after-all/#comment-296553
So every special interest wants a debate focused on their special interest. What else is new? Debates between members of opposite parties do not happen until the nominees are officially chosen. So scratch that. Is science really the hot issue within the Democratic primaries? I think not. Scratch that. Sorry, Randy, your pet project isn’t going to happen.
Sol,
“Jed, Ever watch Super Nanny???”
Nope, but the two brattiest, most spoiled kids I knew growing up are now both respected doctors, and they did it without “Supernanny”
By the way, that slime you seem to want to put down so much is the reason you have oxygen to breathe!
SolDevVB,
Do you prefer to believe Tracy’s inaccurate op-ed at IBD, instead of Dr. Tapping himself?
Dr. Tapping is not an AGW skeptic.
‘Scientist Busts Biz Sheet for Misrepresenting His Work’
http://www.desmogblog.com/scientist-bust-biz-sheet-for-misrepresenting-his-work “National Research Council of Canada scientist Dr. Kenneth Tapping has offered whithering criticism of Investor’s Business Daily for reporting that Tapping is among those who deny that greenhouse gases are the principal cause of current global warming.”
Part of Dr. Tapping’s response, http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/02/09/6488/ “It is the opinion of scientists, including me, that global warming is a major issue, and that it might be too late to do anything about it already. If there is a cooling due to the solar activity cycle laying off for a bit, then the a period of solar cooling could be a much-needed respite giving us more time to attack the problem of greenhouse gases, with the caveat that if we do not, things will be far worse when things turn on again after a few decades. However, once again it is early days and we cannot at the moment conclude there is another minimum started.”
Sorry cosmos, did you ask a question? It is hard to tell through the queue of questions as of yet unanswered by you.
SolDevVB,
Actually, I pointed out that you rely on inaccurate sources, like IBD’s op-ed. Your response is not needed.
cosmos relies on inaccurate Computer Climate Models that cannot predict the future and exclude huge repositories of unexplained and untested climate data bases that is necessary to make accurate predictions of climate. You can get there from here cosmos.
SolDevVB,
Do you prefer to believe
If you don’t want a response, don’t ask a question. See how that works? Someone asks a question, the other answers the question. Shouldn’t be too hard for you to understand. I think that might even be a peer reviewed model cosmos :-b
“Danger! Danger Steven Davis! You might be lost in space. Did you say, (gasp) ca-ca-ca-c-cut spending?”
I also said raise taxes. Don’t see you salivating about that one - big surprise there. Let’s permit the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010.
I would like to think an end to the war would be enough to solve our economy problems. It won’t. I had hoped ending the Bush cuts would be enough. It will not be.
It will take some sacrificing by many citizens. People will do that, but they have to believe that they are not being sold a bunch of crap. We have a serious deficit of political credibilty - that problem has been the worst I have seen in the last 7 years.
We can’t grow our way out of the debt. We can’t continue spending money we don’t have. Does anyone not accept these two obvious truths? If one does not, I am not sure where you would begin.
Another inaccuracy in what SolDevVB called “a good post”.
“… researchers at the Max Planck Institute for Solar Research in Germany report the sun has been burning more brightly over the last 60 years, accounting for the 1 degree Celsius increase in Earth’s temperature over the last 100 years.”
The IBD op-ed left out what the Max Planck Society also said,
http://www.mpg.de/english/illustrationsDocumentation/documentation/pressReleases/2004/pressRelease20040802
“However, researchers at the MPS have shown that the Sun can be responsible for, at most, only a small part of the warming over the last 20-30 years.”
AGW deniers have to omit the inconvenient facts.
JimmyMac,
Have you finished your scientific paper that supports E. G. Beck’s (bogus) CO2 theory? What journal is going to publish it?
‘Hissink, CO2 and conspiracy theories’
http://timlambert.org/2005/01/hissink3
Science? Well, in Kansas, the motto should be “We dont need no stinkin’ science”.
Read about the science fairy tale that is the legislature’s “debate” about the Holcomb plant.
These guys are NUTS!
Scroll past the family update if you are not interested. The posts about Holcomb are great.
Oh, and the one about Ringo and Thelma is pretty good too. heheheh.
http://www.kansasprairie.net/kansasprairieblog/
cosmos - are they still bringing up Beck’s stuff? How many times does he have to be debunked?
I’m sure if you took a sample from inside the building I am in right now it too would be anomolous.
Ben,
I think JimmyMac still believes that Beck’s CO2 theory is valid.
JimmyMac posted something about all the fires during World War II causing global CO2 to rise dramatically.
This debate has never been intended as a science test, so commenters who claim they don’t care whether a candidate knows science can rest easy.
Here’s what the organizer said in an email to the New York Times:
Sorry for the bad formatting. Here’s another try:
This debate is designed to illumine how a candidate thinks, how they make decisions . . . how will they determine whether they’re getting the best information available, or just pablum consistent with their donor base? Will our next leader base his/her decisions on the best advice from the reality-based community, or on platitudes from more “heckuva job Brownies”?
Okay, maybe you don’t care whether a candidate knows how to make an informed decision. Anyone having that attitude, though, is likely to have their own decision-making abilities questioned.
3 Trackbacks
[...] Female Science Professor wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerpt [...]
[...] WE Blog » The Wichita Eagle Editorial Department Blog wrote an interesting post today on Science debate waiting on candidatesHere’s a quick excerptScience debate waiting on candidates Posted6:00 a.m. It’s official. A date and time have been set for a presidential science debate: April 18 at the Franklin Institute in Philadelphia, four days before the Pennsylvania primary. Now it’s up to the candidates to agree to address a range of science and technology issues that are vital to the nation’s economic future. For example, as debate organizer Shawn Otto points out, “Science and technology have driven 50 percent of our growth in GDP over [...]
[...] Read the rest of this great post here [...]