4 ms·

The Holdren nomination: Obama politicizes science

13 points by miked 18y ago

earl 18y ago
Short summary: the author of this opinion column disparages Obama's science nominees because when they weigh in on global warming and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, they don't treat ignoring the problem now and removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the future via technology to be developed at unknown expense and feasibility as a perfectly rationale alternative to emission cuts now. Because everybody knows when you wave the magic technology wand, what you want always pops right out at a price and opportunity cost that you are willing to bear.
- endtime 18y ago
  That's not a very objective summary. The author's main point is actually that some scientists try to disguise their political agendas as scientific fact, and that two of Obama's appointees seem to fall into this camp.
  - earl 18y ago
    Well, his only example was this, so when the shoe fits... Tierney frankly conflates political agendas with making your best guesses about the future given current knowledge and resource constraints. He's a global warming denier version 2.0: it's happening, but we're not sure where we'll end up or it's too expensive to fix, so the best thing to do right now is nothing. Impugning the current best science by claiming it to be politically motivated is par for the course.
    - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
      Can we get past calling honest scientific skepticism "denial"? Or is everything black and white? Because that was the point -- if you're going to spin things, you're politicizing it. There's a lot of dissent, and there are a lot of questions that remain unsolved. Then there's the whole cost-benefit thing. Then there's the wisdom of trying to reverse-engineer something we've supposed inadvertently done. Then there's the question of what's the "right" climate. Then there's the question of what's natural or not. The list goes on. The entire issue is deep in the political swamp, no matter how you slice it. Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble. Science is better than that.
      - hsmyers 18y ago
        I can live with the current level of 'politicize' as it is vastly better than the previous level of 'theologize'. As you I would much prefer an atmosphere of point and counter point but those days (if they ever existed) may be hard to come by again.
        DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I agree. Then I think it's time we called political science appointments for what they are -- political appointments. Their job is political, not scientific. This is the same as political appointments in other branches of government. The clear idea is that the appointee will uphold and support the politics of the administration, not pursue some other agenda -- pure science, clean waters, cushy prison cells for corporate crooks, etc If those are the ground rules, then I can live with that. But it seems that when the guy was saying one thing he was political and when a different guy in the same job was saying another he was not, and that's clearly not the case. It's all politics.
      - calambrac 18y ago
        What about this article makes you think Tierney is engaged in honest scientific skepticism? He's cherry-picking quotes and using them to call into question these scientist's objectivity without ever addressing the substance of the statements themselves. For instance, he never says why Chu was wrong to have talked about the possible threat of global warming to California agriculture, he just throws it out there and rhetorically rolls his eyes. The battle lines are already drawn, and this article is just another volley, easily as political as what it purports to be criticizing. This article has the same feel as one advocating for intelligent design: argument by incredulity (a billion people dead from climate change, really complex organisms arising from evolution, each just so unfathomable they simply can't be true), a professed rejection of the extremists the author might get lumped in with (id isn't creationism, focusing on capture isn't the same as denying global warming), even though the end policy effect is basically the same as if the extremist's views were adopted (don't teach evolution as fact, don't take real action against global warming). And really, saying that "Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble", what does that even mean? If a scientist believes that the scientific question of global warming amounts to a serious threat, what, exactly, are they supposed to do to "stay clear", when that's precisely what the political question is, as well?
- gruseom 18y ago
  Actually, the article (among other things) expresses concern about one of these nominees having taken part in one of the most notorious acts of scientific censorship in our time. I didn't know that, and the author's concern seems reasonable. Edit: I'm talking about Scientific American's vendetta against Bjorn Lomborg, during which they not only refused to publish his response, but threatened to sue for copyright infringement when he put it online, denying him permission to quote the passages he was defending himself against. If I recall correctly, Lomborg did as SA demanded (crippling his own rebuttal), which prompted one of the founders of Greenpeace to put the whole thing up on his own website, saying that while he didn't agree with Lomborg he disagreed with censorship more.
  - Retric 18y ago
    At the cost of ~5% of the US GDP/year for 20 years we could get our net carbon emissions below 10% of where they are today. Granted few people seem to think this is a worthwhile investment (I don't know), but it's not like it's pie in they sky fairyland talk either. One approach would be: Solar home / hot water heaters for every home / building in the continental US. (Pointless in Alaska) This would pay for it's self fairly quickly so IMO it's a good idea. Power the grid with a combination of Wind, Thermal Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear, with large grid connected energy storage systems. This pays off in the long term, but it's expensive. Electrify the nations highways, so electric cars can cross the country without backup power. Also add charging stations to most parking lots. This is where things get really expensive and there is not an off the shelf solution for this. So, the real question becomes how far down that path you take before the costs outweigh the benefits. Which is where knowing how much damage you get based on what level of carbon output. While politicians might not like the answers, it's a reasonable scientific debate, with a definitive answer.
    - ewanmcteagle 18y ago
      It's not a scientific debate and there may not be a definitive answer. This is where smart people often go astray. Not everyone has the same preferences or treats risk in the same manner. Anytime you start saying cost-benefit analysis you have to deal with the issue that there isn't one cost-benefit analysis. That makes it not science. 5% of GDP is huge but it doesn't have the same effect on each person in a society. There's also no way to take 5% of GDP without undesirable side-effects and those also have unpredictable distribution.
icey 18y ago
Why do people insist on bringing politics to HN?
newt0311 18y ago
A far better analysis of the issue (with primary sources!!): http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_and.html http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_a...

13 points by miked 18y ago

earl 18y ago

Short summary: the author of this opinion column disparages Obama's science nominees because when they weigh in on global warming and CO2 accumulation in the atmosphere, they don't treat ignoring the problem now and removing CO2 from the atmosphere in the future via technology to be developed at unknown expense and feasibility as a perfectly rationale alternative to emission cuts now. Because everybody knows when you wave the magic technology wand, what you want always pops right out at a price and opportunity cost that you are willing to bear.

endtime 18y ago
That's not a very objective summary. The author's main point is actually that some scientists try to disguise their political agendas as scientific fact, and that two of Obama's appointees seem to fall into this camp.
- earl 18y ago
  Well, his only example was this, so when the shoe fits... Tierney frankly conflates political agendas with making your best guesses about the future given current knowledge and resource constraints. He's a global warming denier version 2.0: it's happening, but we're not sure where we'll end up or it's too expensive to fix, so the best thing to do right now is nothing. Impugning the current best science by claiming it to be politically motivated is par for the course.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    Can we get past calling honest scientific skepticism "denial"? Or is everything black and white? Because that was the point -- if you're going to spin things, you're politicizing it. There's a lot of dissent, and there are a lot of questions that remain unsolved. Then there's the whole cost-benefit thing. Then there's the wisdom of trying to reverse-engineer something we've supposed inadvertently done. Then there's the question of what's the "right" climate. Then there's the question of what's natural or not. The list goes on. The entire issue is deep in the political swamp, no matter how you slice it. Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble. Science is better than that.
    - hsmyers 18y ago
      I can live with the current level of 'politicize' as it is vastly better than the previous level of 'theologize'. As you I would much prefer an atmosphere of point and counter point but those days (if they ever existed) may be hard to come by again.
      - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
        I agree. Then I think it's time we called political science appointments for what they are -- political appointments. Their job is political, not scientific. This is the same as political appointments in other branches of government. The clear idea is that the appointee will uphold and support the politics of the administration, not pursue some other agenda -- pure science, clean waters, cushy prison cells for corporate crooks, etc If those are the ground rules, then I can live with that. But it seems that when the guy was saying one thing he was political and when a different guy in the same job was saying another he was not, and that's clearly not the case. It's all politics.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      What about this article makes you think Tierney is engaged in honest scientific skepticism? He's cherry-picking quotes and using them to call into question these scientist's objectivity without ever addressing the substance of the statements themselves. For instance, he never says why Chu was wrong to have talked about the possible threat of global warming to California agriculture, he just throws it out there and rhetorically rolls his eyes. The battle lines are already drawn, and this article is just another volley, easily as political as what it purports to be criticizing. This article has the same feel as one advocating for intelligent design: argument by incredulity (a billion people dead from climate change, really complex organisms arising from evolution, each just so unfathomable they simply can't be true), a professed rejection of the extremists the author might get lumped in with (id isn't creationism, focusing on capture isn't the same as denying global warming), even though the end policy effect is basically the same as if the extremist's views were adopted (don't teach evolution as fact, don't take real action against global warming). And really, saying that "Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble", what does that even mean? If a scientist believes that the scientific question of global warming amounts to a serious threat, what, exactly, are they supposed to do to "stay clear", when that's precisely what the political question is, as well?
gruseom 18y ago
Actually, the article (among other things) expresses concern about one of these nominees having taken part in one of the most notorious acts of scientific censorship in our time. I didn't know that, and the author's concern seems reasonable. Edit: I'm talking about Scientific American's vendetta against Bjorn Lomborg, during which they not only refused to publish his response, but threatened to sue for copyright infringement when he put it online, denying him permission to quote the passages he was defending himself against. If I recall correctly, Lomborg did as SA demanded (crippling his own rebuttal), which prompted one of the founders of Greenpeace to put the whole thing up on his own website, saying that while he didn't agree with Lomborg he disagreed with censorship more.
- Retric 18y ago
  At the cost of ~5% of the US GDP/year for 20 years we could get our net carbon emissions below 10% of where they are today. Granted few people seem to think this is a worthwhile investment (I don't know), but it's not like it's pie in they sky fairyland talk either. One approach would be: Solar home / hot water heaters for every home / building in the continental US. (Pointless in Alaska) This would pay for it's self fairly quickly so IMO it's a good idea. Power the grid with a combination of Wind, Thermal Solar, Hydro, and Nuclear, with large grid connected energy storage systems. This pays off in the long term, but it's expensive. Electrify the nations highways, so electric cars can cross the country without backup power. Also add charging stations to most parking lots. This is where things get really expensive and there is not an off the shelf solution for this. So, the real question becomes how far down that path you take before the costs outweigh the benefits. Which is where knowing how much damage you get based on what level of carbon output. While politicians might not like the answers, it's a reasonable scientific debate, with a definitive answer.
  - ewanmcteagle 18y ago
    It's not a scientific debate and there may not be a definitive answer. This is where smart people often go astray. Not everyone has the same preferences or treats risk in the same manner. Anytime you start saying cost-benefit analysis you have to deal with the issue that there isn't one cost-benefit analysis. That makes it not science. 5% of GDP is huge but it doesn't have the same effect on each person in a society. There's also no way to take 5% of GDP without undesirable side-effects and those also have unpredictable distribution.

icey 18y ago

Why do people insist on bringing politics to HN?

newt0311 18y ago

A far better analysis of the issue (with primary sources!!): http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_and.html http://www.discriminations.us/2009/02/politicizing_science_a...