A serious science debate? Don't hold your breath
Barb ShellyFour years ago, a group of science writers tried to organize a debate in which Barack Obama and John McCain would debate science issues. Neither campaign was interested. In this story by the McClatchy News Service, author Shawn Lawrence Otto says the group will try again in 2012.
We should have that debate. If the campaign comes down to Barack Obama and Mitt Romney, as I expect it will, it would be fascinating to see and hear a serious discussion about climate change, medical ethics and other issues where science and public policy intersect. I’m not holding my breath.
As Otto explains in his new book: “Fool me twice: fighting the assault on science in America,” science is perilous ground for politicians. Acknowledging problems and embracing solutions generally means change, and change always steps on someone’s turf.
Here is Otto quoted in the McClatchy story:
Science does two things that we don’t love. It does lots of things that we do love, but the two things we don’t love are: Whenever we extend our knowledge, we have to parse that new knowledge morally and ethically … . The other thing is that it either confirms or vexes somebody’s vested interested.
Neither Obama nor Romney would have an easy time discussing climate change, perhaps the most urgent scientific issue of the day. Obama embraces the prevailing science but would have to explain why he hasn’t effectively been able to lead a movement toward reduced harmful emissions. Romney has been all over the board on global warming, as noted in this National Journal article.
Four years ago, the best the science writers could do was get each campaign to respond to 14 questions in writing and post the responses on a website, ScienceDebate.org. I’ll hope for a debate, but look for a repeat.
Google+
Share
Tweet
Matt Henry
1 month, 3 weeks agoOh my lord, can you imagine the Barb Shelly column the next day when a candidate didn’t drop to the ground crying about the existential threat to humanity that is global warming?
Perhaps the reason neither Obama or Romney want to discuss the science of climate change is because climate change is not about science, and those who react to positions on AGW don’t do so with the science in mind. Climate change is about money and who gets it. Look no further than Durban and how much time was spent negotiating how much money would be redistributed from rich to poor countries as a matter of “climate justice.”
It matters not how many cover-up scandals there are, how many CERN-type studies show that AGW is a joke, how many UN and sub-saharan african hands are caught in the American cookie-jar, the Barb Shellys of the world would demagogue to death the candidate who didn’t tow the socialist-marxist line on this topic. He would be a “denier”, a tool of big business, a polluter who wants women and children to die.
So why in the world would they risk it?
Mark Hastert
1 month, 3 weeks agoWe make up 4% of the population, that’s like trying to damn up 4% of a raging river and then wondering why the river is still raging and flooding. Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/serious-science-debate-dont-hold-your-breath/#storylink=cpy
…yes but we consume 25%+/- of global energy annually so to make the analogy more accurate we’re 25% of the raging river and what we do or don’t do would absolutely matter.
Kevin O'Brien
1 month, 3 weeks agoWe produce the vast amount of the worlds food as well. Run along with your tired disproven crap.
Ned Nowotny
1 month, 3 weeks agoI am as big a fan of the scientific method and research as anyone. However, I am not particularly interested in hearing politicians debate science. For one thing, it is not something the overwhelming majority of them are competent to discuss—Mr. Obama and Mr. Romney included. For another, policy and legislation should not be based on science, but on engineering.
Now before the science-is-my-religion-but-I-do-not-practice-religion crowd gets all up in arms, please remember that engineering is well grounded in scientific principles. However, it must also take practical and economic issues under consideration when developing solutions to identified problems. That is not part of the scientific method or a goal of most scientific research, but it is vital when considering government policy, legislation, regulation, and enforcement.
Observing that carbon dioxide levels in the atmosphere have risen from less than 0.05% to less than 0.05%—yes, both percentages are correct—over the last 50 years and then declaring that the rise will have “catastrophic” consequences is hardly enough on which to enact expensive and far-reaching policies absent serious engineering analysis of any proposed solutions. Instead, it is little more than political demagoguery and should properly be viewed with suspicion—though, admittedly, much of the suspicion that exists is based on “facts” no more sound then some of the more outrageous “facts” some people believe about the attacks on September 11, 2001.
In any case, candidates for President of the United States are not going to have much meaningful to say on most of the “scientific” topics proposed in the article. Now, if you can get one to admit to being a flat-Earther or babies-are-delivered-by-storks true believer, that could be significant—maybe. Still, I am less ambitious. I would be happy if they could simply add up income and expenses, subtract the latter from the former, and realize that a negative result is a “bad thing.”
Pappy Jeanneret
1 month, 3 weeks agoWhy would we want to listen to two politicians debate something they don’t have a firm grasp of? How about two scientist from each side of the climate debate. Oh yes, they do exists. I just want a president and congress that can balance the books.
Mark Hastert
1 month, 3 weeks ago“But you fail to take into consideration that with our already very strict clean air, water, etc regulations while we do consume a good part of the annual energy resources our footprint on the climate of the world is still quite small.”
Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/serious-science-debate-dont-hold-your-breath/#storylink=cpy
Well.. not exactly. As I previously pointed out that although we are about 4% of the worlds population were consume 25%+/- of the energy. That said, I couldn’t agree with you more that our percentage of regulated pollutants is much smaller than other countries, notably China and India.
Although I’m sure it wasn’t intentional you couldn’t agree with me more when you say that our smaller pollution footprint is due to our strict regulations. In other words the EPA is responsible for our progress. But this begs the question; why do we still produce so much CO2? Answer; because the EPA hasn’t regulated it yet. Setting aside the global warming issue we’re breathing cleaner air, drinking cleaner water, and eating food produced in less polluted soil because of the regulations mandated by the big bad EPA.
I briefly checked back and every time a new regulation has been proposed the polluters drag out the same old tired excuses, many of which appear in the previous posts so I won’t bore you with repetition. They never voluntarily clean up anything. Why would they? It costs money. In that regard the EPA does entire industries (power plants, auto mfg etc) a great service by mandating industry wide compliance so that the competitive playing field is level. If all your competitors have to clean up after themselves then it becomes an incentive to be smarter to maintain an edge. If only they had a tool like Cap & Trade to help them, another really good Republican idea gone to waste.
My point is this. Thanks to the EPA what we have done did make a difference and what we continue to do with CO2 will also make a difference globally and right here in KC… every time you draw a breath.
Kevin O'Brien
1 month, 3 weeks agoMark the fact you say so in itself makes it incorect. Please save your cut and paste garbage for the other libtards dumb enough to buy it.
Mark Hastert
1 month, 3 weeks ago“Mark the fact you say so in itself makes it incorect. Please save your cut and paste garbage for the other libtards dumb enough to buy it.” Read more here: http://voices.kansascity.com/entries/serious-science-debate-dont-hold-your-breath/#storylink=cpy
Thanks again for the thoughtful commentary… You know they’re beaten when they start slinging slurs.