3 ms·

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 curr

by 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?
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    1) I was replying to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=493695 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=493695 which used the phrase "Global Warming Denier 2.0" 2) It's interesting that the article has a certain feel to you. Feel free to continue commenting on the article. I wasn't. 3) Pick what you want: a science adviser that makes dramatic political statements (for which you may agree or disagree) or one who keeps his mouth shut and administers policy. Last administration we were told that "science was politicized" Fine. Then let's go with the keep-your-mouth-shut rule. But now it seems the rules are different. It's simple. Just pick one. I'm okay with either.
    - calambrac 18y ago
      re: 1) You're saying I was wrong to think that your objection to his use of that phrase to describe Tierney meant that you thought the article was honest scientific skepticism? re: 2) You used the phrase "Because that was the point". If not of the article, which you weren't commenting on, than the point of what, exactly? re: 3) You specifically said "Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble", that hardly sounds like you're okay with either. All I was saying is that the scientific question is the political question, you can't have a scientific opinion without simultaneously having a political one. What good is a science advisor who can't give their opinion because it happens to also be political? And the question of science being politicized in the previous administration referred mostly, imo, to people with no science experience at all making decisions about what did and didn't get funded based on strictly political considerations. This doesn't seem comparable, really.
- dkarl 18y ago
  > 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. On the contrary, the entire job of a science advisor is to present and interpret the available scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions.

by earl 18y ago

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?
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  1) I was replying to http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=493695 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=493695 which used the phrase "Global Warming Denier 2.0" 2) It's interesting that the article has a certain feel to you. Feel free to continue commenting on the article. I wasn't. 3) Pick what you want: a science adviser that makes dramatic political statements (for which you may agree or disagree) or one who keeps his mouth shut and administers policy. Last administration we were told that "science was politicized" Fine. Then let's go with the keep-your-mouth-shut rule. But now it seems the rules are different. It's simple. Just pick one. I'm okay with either.
  - calambrac 18y ago
    re: 1) You're saying I was wrong to think that your objection to his use of that phrase to describe Tierney meant that you thought the article was honest scientific skepticism? re: 2) You used the phrase "Because that was the point". If not of the article, which you weren't commenting on, than the point of what, exactly? re: 3) You specifically said "Science advisers should stay clear instead of being part of the rabble", that hardly sounds like you're okay with either. All I was saying is that the scientific question is the political question, you can't have a scientific opinion without simultaneously having a political one. What good is a science advisor who can't give their opinion because it happens to also be political? And the question of science being politicized in the previous administration referred mostly, imo, to people with no science experience at all making decisions about what did and didn't get funded based on strictly political considerations. This doesn't seem comparable, really.
dkarl 18y ago
> 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. On the contrary, the entire job of a science advisor is to present and interpret the available scientific evidence relevant to policy decisions.