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:
QuoteI 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 (http://cosmicvariance.com/2006/02/04/administration-official-big-bang-is-just-a-theory/) 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.
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.
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.
Are you afraid it would end up like this?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1052354/Are-going-die-Wednesday.html
:lulz:
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.
And McCain has answered the questions now.
http://www.sciencedebate2008.com/www/index.php?id=44
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:43:31 PM
:lulz:
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?
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.
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2008, 03:40:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2008, 03:40:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 21, 2008, 06:33:28 AM
Quote from: Kai on September 21, 2008, 03:40:00 AM
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.
Quote from: Iason Ouabache on September 21, 2008, 06:33:28 AM
It's not like anyone expects McCain and Obama to slug it out over string theory.
I wouldn't mind watching them try.
Quote from: Requiem on September 21, 2008, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:43:31 PM
:lulz:
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.
Quote from: LMNO on September 22, 2008, 03:11:33 PM
Quote from: Requiem on September 21, 2008, 12:23:14 AM
Quote from: LMNO on September 04, 2008, 02:43:31 PM
:lulz:
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.
How do you know that?
You could use physical evidence of implied CO2 emmissions to imply anthropogenic acceleration.
I'm not sure, myself. I'm not a climatologist. I don't know much about that science. I know quite a bit about water resources, so I could easily argue that the impact of human pollution upon fresh and marine waters of the world is unsustainable. I don't know about climate change though.
Quote from: Rev. What's-His-Name? on September 22, 2008, 03:15:41 PM
How do you know that?
The fact that Co
2 absorbs infrared radiation:
(http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/ir_img7.gif) (http://www.wag.caltech.edu/home/jang/genchem/infrared.htm)
The fact that this absorbance increases the heat energy in an atom of carbon dioxide, and the fact that humans have been pumping CO[/sub]2[/sub] into the atmosphere over the past 150 years or so. Not to mention that I have read literature and opinions by climatologists (an example) (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/les-chevaliers-de-l%E2%80%99ordre-de-la-terre-plate-part-ii-courtillots-geomagnetic-excursion/). I tend to trust the people who study the climate to get it right. Especially when I consider the track record of scientific thought.
And I think this is precisely the nature of the problem.
When science found hard evidence that asbestos was not good, the government responded. Hard evidence that tobacco causes cancer, and we get a response... same for most other areas that the government and science have crossed on before... Hard Evidence = Action.
The problem with global warming/cooling/climate change is that hard evidence will likely show up around the time that we're swimming with the polar bears and fighting over some island chain that used to be West Virgina.
it's easy to take 20,000 humans and say 50% smoke and they have high cancer rates, 50% don't smoke and they have lower rates. It's much more difficult with this, since we have no other planets for comparison and we're not even too sure about the patient history on this issue.
And, of course, unlike Tobacco or Asbestos, God would never let the planet go to hell.... I mean, until he comes down and does the job personally.
I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.
30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.
We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2008, 08:04:46 PM
I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.
30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.
We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.
I understand the data is limited, the data is always limited. Another example would be that the data available for studying evolution is limited, but do biologists doubt that? Do you doubt that? Sure, hypothetically tomorrow a genuine rabbit fossil could be found in the precambrian, but the odds of it are insignificant.
I guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO
2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation? Does anybody doubt that humans have released a hell of a lot of it into the atmosphere? (do I really have to post the chemical equation for the oxidation of hydrocarbons?)
Now, let's say I'm completely wrong and carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming. CO
2 is also responsible for other environmental harm. Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This is what makes acid rain acidic. Do I really have to post some of the effects of acid rain? Is everyone here familiar with what acid can do? This reaction also has a nasty effect in the oceans, actually, the same effect. At the current rate of CO
2 emissions the pH of the oceans will drop 0.5 units by 2100 (note: pH is a logarithmic scale). This is an unprecedented rate of change (link) (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp). I don't know what the full effects would be, but I do know that it's a fucking huge change in the global environment.
Well, first off, limited data doesn't mean we can't have theories, working hypothesis or useful models... but without hard fact, you're not gonna convince J Random Umerikin that global warming is anything other than Liberal bullshit.
I understand the harm that CO2 is doing, even barring the global warming issue... I mean we seem to be one of the few species that willingly add poisons into our habitat. It's asinine.
However, since global warming became a political football, facts aren't gonna get in the way of people's opinion... at least not until they're cold, hard, obvious facts that don't require any scientific knowledge to grok. Once you show them a North Pole that's liquid in December, you'll change some minds. Once you show them firestorms sweeping across the West, and London is like Venice... then they'll say "Oh hey, we should do something about this global warming stuff."
Until then, we're probably best off praying that there's a God willing to keep humans from killing themselves ;-)
Quote from: Ratatosk on September 22, 2008, 10:44:41 PM
Well, first off, limited data doesn't mean we can't have theories, working hypothesis or useful models... but without hard fact, you're not gonna convince J Random Umerikin that global warming is anything other than Liberal bullshit.
I have hard facts to support other theories (evolution, the big bang, radiometric dating), but J Random Umerikin thinks that those are Liberal bullshit too. And I don't think that the people here are J Random Umerikin.
Quote...at least not until they're cold, hard, obvious facts that don't require any scientific knowledge to grok.
And here's the problem. Science isn't easy. It can be counter-intuitive. A climatologist could present a huge list of evidence in support of GW and what the possible consequences are, but that's not going to mean anything to J Random Umerikin. If I didn't have a background in chemistry I would have a significantly harder time understanding this stuff.
QuoteUntil then, we're probably best off praying that there's a God willing to keep humans from killing themselves ;-)
You do that, it ain't gonna help, but you do that.
QuoteI guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation?
Well it's not like it doesn't give it back.
QuoteCO2 is also responsible for other environmental harm. Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This is what makes acid rain acidic.
Actually I think it's mostly sulfur dioxide that causes acid rain.
Not that I'm necessarily arguing against your main point, I'm just nitpicking.
Quote from: Vene on September 22, 2008, 09:43:16 PM
Quote from: Kai on September 22, 2008, 08:04:46 PM
I was reading something from The Immense Journey by Loren Eisley last night. Its the chapter where Eisley goes on and on about the abyss, the deep ocean, and how it was only secondarily colonized. this was back in the 40s or 50s when Eisley wrote it. He said that scientists used to think life developed and came from the deep but now we know that wasn't true.
30-50 years later, Hydrothermal vent ecosystems based entirely on chemosynthetic bacteria that oxidize sulfur were discovered and now the hypothesis is that life likely developed in places like that. Yet Eisley, a rather good scientist and physical anthropologist, an intelligent person, was so sure that life couldn't have originated down there.
We didn't have all the information, we still don't have all the information.
I understand the data is limited, the data is always limited. Another example would be that the data available for studying evolution is limited, but do biologists doubt that? Do you doubt that? Sure, hypothetically tomorrow a genuine rabbit fossil could be found in the precambrian, but the odds of it are insignificant.
I guess the questions here are, does anybody doubt that CO2 absorbs electromagnetic radiation? Does anybody doubt that humans have released a hell of a lot of it into the atmosphere? (do I really have to post the chemical equation for the oxidation of hydrocarbons?)
Now, let's say I'm completely wrong and carbon dioxide doesn't cause global warming. CO2 is also responsible for other environmental harm. Carbon dioxide reacts with water to form carbonic acid. This is what makes acid rain acidic. Do I really have to post some of the effects of acid rain? Is everyone here familiar with what acid can do? This reaction also has a nasty effect in the oceans, actually, the same effect. At the current rate of CO2 emissions the pH of the oceans will drop 0.5 units by 2100 (note: pH is a logarithmic scale). This is an unprecedented rate of change (link) (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp). I don't know what the full effects would be, but I do know that it's a fucking huge change in the global environment.
A hydrologist would say that there is always carbonic acid in rain. Its a natural part of coming in contact with CO2 in the atmosphere whether we create it or not, and I don't see the overal concentrations of C02 changing in the atmosphere. Still at 387 ppm on average. They might suggest that nitrogen oxides and sulfur oxides are a much more potent agent for acid rain, as carbonic acid is relatively weak. Its what makes limestone caves, and that sort of thing has been going on for a long time.
As for the pH change in the oceans, I need a citation on that. Its possible, but it might just be caused by NOx and SOx.
Not sure what to look for in the article, because my chem is pretty weak, but here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
Also, I think it might be fun to concoct a completely bullshit, but entirely believable, argument against (or for) Global Warming and see how well we could get it to propagate.?
There are already enough people doing that. I'd rather just get to the bottom of this and avoid this catastrophe altogether.
Quote from: Felix on September 23, 2008, 01:33:44 AM
Not sure what to look for in the article, because my chem is pretty weak, but here ya go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ocean_acidification
I know how the carbonate species work, so I understood it rather well. I also read the possible impacts section, and there are ambiguous data. I'm not sure who to believe on this, any of it really. I know evolution is a fact from my own work and research in biology, but I don't know enough about this other stuff to make any educated predictions.
My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean. It is at the very least an insult to life itself. We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.
Quote from: Felix on September 23, 2008, 03:24:08 AM
My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean. It is at the very least an insult to life itself. We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.
This. We do not have a good track record for taking care of our planet.
By the way, I did give a link for ocean acidification:
http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp (http://www.rsc.org/chemistryworld/News/2005/July/01070501.asp)
Quote from: Felix on September 23, 2008, 03:24:08 AM
My position, however unencumbered with hard science, is that no matter what- whether we're actually influencing the global environment in any way or not, in any shape or form, we have got to stop littering in the ocean. It is at the very least an insult to life itself. We ought not be shitting where life presumably began.
QFT
Reminded me of something I wrote after "Live Earth"
QuoteSave Our Earth?
Live Earth has ended and lots of people watched concert performances to Save Our Planet. I'm not sure how watching Red Hot Chili Peppers will reduce greenhouse gases, but maybe I'm missing the point. After all, the performers did give several shout outs to good old Momma Earth and I'm sure she appreciated the props. Perhaps after they finished their sets, they went back to their bio-diesel powered private jets and home to their self-sustaining earthships... or their multi million dollar mansions filled with energy wasting products (maybe thats not fair and they actually use the little curly light bulbs... I shouldn't assume that they don't).
It did strike me that the motto of the movement may be incorrect in its statement. Save the Earth, sounds majestic, it sounds important, it sounds like something that the crew of the Enterprise would be tasked with. However, as far as I can tell, we're not "Saving the Earth", we're saving our habitat. I think the distinction is important. You see, out of all the physical objects we humans experience... the Earth and the Sun seem to be pretty safe. No matter what we do, the Earth and Sun apparently will continue on their merry cosmic dance until the lights come up and the bouncer starts collecting drinks. The Earth will be fine if we pump the environment full of toxins... we won't, but the Earth will. Hell, the Earth seemed fine in Waterworld, notwithstanding Costner's acting, and I don't see any scientist predicting that we'll have a global flood (besides, I saw a rainbow, so obviously that's impossible). In the reality of Human Beings the Earth is one of the most damned SAFE objects in existence.
However, to state the truth of the matter "Save our Habitat", perhaps evokes the wrong emotion. Save the Earth evokes excitement, its a challenge, its a cause. "Save our Habitat", on the other hand, perhaps evokes... shame. We, as a species, have a better understanding of cause and effect than the other fruits of the Taxonomic Tree. Yet, with the exception of some invasive species (and viruses) most of our fellow branches don't intentionally destroy their own habitat. Sure there may be cases of overpopulation or environmental changes (drought etc), but for the most part, species tend not to destroy that which is required for survival. Perhaps this is unintentional, perhaps it's evolutionary programming. Whatever it may be, we humans appear to have lost it. A number of 'conservatives' I've talked/debated/argued with seem to hold one of three opinions: 1) Global Warming is a Liberal Plot. 2) We humans are too insignificant to damage the Earth or 3) Global Warming is also occurring on Mars and therefore not our fault. As to the fact that we're spewing all sorts of compounds into the air that we need to breathe (global warming or not), they are concerned that it would hurt the economy for us to stop poisoning our habitat.
I would imagine that if we paid them to dump radioactive waste in their backyard, the economy wouldn't appear nearly as important.
So we have folks that don't seem to care about the habitat and others that preach about saving the environment. Yet, I haven't seen much actual useful changes come from most of the preachers (sorta like a lot of Christian preachers, big on words from the pulpit, not so much on actions). I saw a recent Global Warming rally and oddly, many of the people came in cars. Not electric cars or bio-diesel, but your average assortment of American and foreign cars... the sort I've seen at anti-war rallies and hippie festivals and in the parking lot outside of my office. The Cause,it seems, is popular, but the work required to effect change may be less. If you hate the Republicans because Bush is a douche and failed to sign the Kyoto Treaty, well good. However, if you aren't trying to save energy yourself... if you aren't using energy saving devices in your home, if you aren't using cold water when you can, if you aren't shutting down your electronic devices when not in use, if you aren't riding the bus, bicycle or your using your legs (at least when/where those options are feasible), then are you any better than any other American too drugged up on McDonalds and American Idol to care about their habitat?
That's what I asked myself. I haven't really tried saving energy, most of the lights in my house are incandescent. My car is an average vehicle with average gas mileage. I don't own a bicycle and the bus schedule would add an extra 3 hours to my work day. I'm sure that 'Gaia' doesn't care, but my grandchildren might. So, this journal entry is a reminder for me. What sort of human will I be? Will I contribute to the continued destruction of my habitat (through Global Warming or just poisoning the stuff I need to survive), or will I work to change my habits? Even if Al Gore is full of hot air, even if Global Warming is as scientific as Global Cooling was a few decades ago, spewing poisons into our environment can't be a positive thing.
I tend to be careful around sensitive systems that I'm dependent on and which I don't know exactly how they work.
Quote from: nurbldoff on September 23, 2008, 08:58:22 AM
I tend to be careful around sensitive systems that I'm dependent on and which I don't know exactly how they work.
This is the correct solar powered motorcycle.
As Aldo Leopold put it:
"The outstanding scientific discovery of the twentieth century is not television, or radio, but rather the complexity of the land organism. Only those who know the most about it can appreciate how little is known about it. The last word in ignorance is the man who says of an animal or plant: 'What good is it?' If the land mechanism as a whole is good, then every part is good, whether we understand it or not. If the biota, in the course of aeons, has built something we like but do not understand, then who but a fool would discard seemingly useless parts? To keep every cog and wheel is the first precaution of intelligent tinkering."
from A Sand County Almanac
That's basically perfect.
Quote from: Felix on September 24, 2008, 01:17:07 AM
That's basically perfect.
I always thought so. I've had a copy of A Sand County Almanac since high school.
Bringing this back to the OP... Nature also asked both candidates some science questions. Obama answered, McCain didn't (but they cobbled together answers from his speeches anyways):
Part 1: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080903/full/455446a.html
Part 2: http://www.nature.com/news/2008/080923/full/news.2008.1125.html