3 ms·

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 the

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.
  - DanielBMarkham 18y ago
    1) Yes. I just saw the comment and commented on it. That's it. 2) some scientists try to disguise their political agendas as scientific fact was responded to with frankly conflates political agendas with making your best guesses about the future. I was making the observation that conflating things, whether by a writer or a political appointee, is political. To argue about it is to have a political argument. To say the sky is falling may be science. To say we all have to buy steel helmets to be saved and that the other party is working to stop helmet production is politics. 3) I would like science advisers to stay clear, but I'm okay with either position. Honest. In fact, in a different thread on this same topic I made that point. Advisers should give their opinion to the president. The question on the table is whether or not they should also do so to the world at large -- especially if it means glossing over scientific issues for political purposes. I like science too much to see that happen, but I pragmatic enough to realize that it might have to work that way. Like I said, I just want consistency. The thing is, aside from formal proofs science is already a highly political arena. Funding decisions, professorships, research awards, publication rights -- it's all intricately connected to politics. It'd be simpler if that kind of politics stayed out of national partisan politics. It managed to do so for 200 years. Scientists do not want to get into the business of becoming expert witnesses for politicians. It's a marriage made in hell. As far as non-scientific people making scientific funding decisions -- welcome to a democracy. It's supposed to work like that. I was of the opinion that the old science advisers were saying things supporting "global warming deniers" that didn't fit with the current paradigm and then acting on those beliefs. If so, then again, that's politics. Pragmatically perhaps it's supposed to work that way. My understanding was that what people wanted was for the preferred role of adviser to simply advise the president -- not to play politics. That by getting on TV and making sweeping statements he/she was dragging science through the mud. That's what I thought the discussion was about, and it made some sense to me. If I was mistaken, sorry. But that's what I've been hearing.

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.
- DanielBMarkham 18y ago
  1) Yes. I just saw the comment and commented on it. That's it. 2) some scientists try to disguise their political agendas as scientific fact was responded to with frankly conflates political agendas with making your best guesses about the future. I was making the observation that conflating things, whether by a writer or a political appointee, is political. To argue about it is to have a political argument. To say the sky is falling may be science. To say we all have to buy steel helmets to be saved and that the other party is working to stop helmet production is politics. 3) I would like science advisers to stay clear, but I'm okay with either position. Honest. In fact, in a different thread on this same topic I made that point. Advisers should give their opinion to the president. The question on the table is whether or not they should also do so to the world at large -- especially if it means glossing over scientific issues for political purposes. I like science too much to see that happen, but I pragmatic enough to realize that it might have to work that way. Like I said, I just want consistency. The thing is, aside from formal proofs science is already a highly political arena. Funding decisions, professorships, research awards, publication rights -- it's all intricately connected to politics. It'd be simpler if that kind of politics stayed out of national partisan politics. It managed to do so for 200 years. Scientists do not want to get into the business of becoming expert witnesses for politicians. It's a marriage made in hell. As far as non-scientific people making scientific funding decisions -- welcome to a democracy. It's supposed to work like that. I was of the opinion that the old science advisers were saying things supporting "global warming deniers" that didn't fit with the current paradigm and then acting on those beliefs. If so, then again, that's politics. Pragmatically perhaps it's supposed to work that way. My understanding was that what people wanted was for the preferred role of adviser to simply advise the president -- not to play politics. That by getting on TV and making sweeping statements he/she was dragging science through the mud. That's what I thought the discussion was about, and it made some sense to me. If I was mistaken, sorry. But that's what I've been hearing.