ScienceDebate 2008

[Iason Ouabache]

Yes, I know... politics bleeding over into the science subforum is teh LAEM but I thought that was interesting enough to share.  Science Debate 2008 is a grassroots group that is calling for the presidential candidates to get together to debate the environment, health and medicine, and science and technology policy. They sent a list of 14 important questions for each candidate to answer.  So far Obama is the only one to answer:

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=40

He (and/or his science advisors) gives some pretty solid answers, honestly: increasing grants for early-career researchers, drastically cutting greenhouse gas emissions by 2050, investing $150 billion in clean energy research, pushing the focus on STEM education, is against genetic discrimination, level-headed about genetically modified food, pro-stem cell research, wants to bring back the National Aeronautics and Space Council, etc.  Biggest selling point for me is this:

I will restore the basic principle that government decisions should be based on the best- available, scientifically-valid evidence and not on the ideological predispositions of agency officials or political appointees. More broadly, I am committed to creating a transparent and connected democracy, using cutting-edge technologies to provide a new level of transparency, accountability, and participation for America's citizens. Policies must be determined using a process that builds on the long tradition of open debate that has characterized progress in science, including review by individuals who might bring new information or contrasting views.

That was one of my biggest beefs with Bush.  The politicizing of science has got to stop.  Having a goddamn Creationist editing NASA press releases is just going too far.

I'll add the caveat that these are, of course, campaign promises that may or may not come to fruition.  And he doesn't really state how he plans to pay for many of these programs. I'm interested to see how McCain will answer these questions, if he answers them at all.

[Cain]

I wish to see a science fight.

McCain may have spent 5 years in a Vietnamese POW camp, but I bet even he cannot stand a bunsen burner to the face.

[LMNO]

Talking with a scientist with a very high-position job in the administration, and he said that a Science debate would actually do more harm than good, because it would bring broad political spin and hammer-handed promises and agendas to something that works best as a non-political, heavily nuanced issue.

Also, neither party knows what the fuck science is, apparently.  It would drive the actual scientists nuts, and only serve to give the spinners/bullshit artists ammunition.

[Cain]

Are you afraid it would end up like this?

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1052354/Are-going-die-Wednesday.html

[LMNO]

 


that would actually be funny.

im afraid it would turn into the question, "is global warming caused by humans or not?"

There's no way in hell that's a yes or no answer.

[Iason Ouabache]

And McCain has answered the questions now.

http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=44

[Requia ☣]

that would actually be funny.

im afraid it would turn into the question, "is global warming caused by humans or not?"

There's no way in hell that's a yes or no answer.

What exactly is the 'no' part of the answer?

[Kai]

I hate the idea of a science 'debate'. Science doesn't work in debate form. You don't get to decide at the end which side is more interesting and vote for which hypothesis would be the most fun to have a beer with.

[Vene]

I hate the idea of a science 'debate'. Science doesn't work in debate form. You don't get to decide at the end which side is more interesting and vote for which hypothesis would be the most fun to have a beer with.

But steady state sounds so down to earth.

[Iason Ouabache]

I hate the idea of a science 'debate'. Science doesn't work in debate form. You don't get to decide at the end which side is more interesting and vote for which hypothesis would be the most fun to have a beer with.

This isn't a debate about which science is better.  It's about what role the government should play in regards to certain scientific topics: funding for technology, science education, global warming, renewable energy, readiness for a pandemic, stem cell research, space exploration, etc.  It's not like anyone expects McCain and Obama to slug it out over string theory.

[Kai]

I hate the idea of a science 'debate'. Science doesn't work in debate form. You don't get to decide at the end which side is more interesting and vote for which hypothesis would be the most fun to have a beer with.

This isn't a debate about which science is better.  It's about what role the government should play in regards to certain scientific topics: funding for technology, science education, global warming, renewable energy, readiness for a pandemic, stem cell research, space exploration, etc.  It's not like anyone expects McCain and Obama to slug it out over string theory.

Oh, alright, that makes so much more sense.

[Jasper]

It's not like anyone expects McCain and Obama to slug it out over string theory.

I wouldn't mind watching them try.

[LMNO]

that would actually be funny.

im afraid it would turn into the question, "is global warming caused by humans or not?"

There's no way in hell that's a yes or no answer.

What exactly is the 'no' part of the answer?

Fluxuations in global temperatures have been shown via the historical record to be a natural occurence.

[Vene]

that would actually be funny.

im afraid it would turn into the question, "is global warming caused by humans or not?"

There's no way in hell that's a yes or no answer.

What exactly is the 'no' part of the answer?

Fluxuations in global temperatures have been shown via the historical record to be a natural occurence.

It's both.  The globe's temperature would be increasing without our interference, but humans are making the temperature rise on top of natural warming.

[AFK]

How do you know that?