In case anyone was wondering why I didn't blog yesterday, I was traveling--and a long day on the road culminated in a very well received speech at Bowling Green. I'd say there were over 200 people present. They laughed at my jokes.
Now I'm off to Michigan State for another one of these events....meanwhile, the Bush administration just keeps giving me more fodder with this latest Washington Post piece about NOAA and GW...not to mention that Nature is reporting that the Energy Department is ditching its scientific advisory board, which had served for over 30 years. Not a week goes by, it seems, before another one of these stories surfaces....or another two of them....
- Log in to post comments
I read the WaPo article and found it interesting that "...several researchers have received bigger budgets in recent years because President Bush has focused on studying global warming rather than curbing greenhouse gases." When I read items like that I always wonder what new data or model refinement would convince the Administration to take action? We seem to be in the "sure there's global warming and CO2 levels are rising but that doesn't mean the two are related" stage. What do contrarians think will be the missing link, the smoking gun (if I can be so trite)?
"meanwhile, the Bush administration just keeps giving me more fodder" -- Chris Mooney
I would suggest the following as a standard for gauging intellectual honesty in science journalism today:
How (indeed whether) a science journalist handles each new revelation of Bush administration political interference with science.
Ignoring it == intellectual dishonesty (if it is done purposely to avoid addressing the issue, hoping that "no one will notice")
Denying it outright, without properly considering ALL the evidence == intellectual dishonesty
Claiming effectively, that "Even if political interference is occurring, it is not important to address it** because 'Every President does it' "
== intellectual dishonesty
(worse than denial if the goal is the same -- because of the "craftiness factor")
** other than through the ordinary political process -- eg, electing new Congressman.
Funny, Roger Pielke Jr. was very clear that the NOAA problem was history. I guess it depends on who you talk to. I notice that Eilperin didn't touch on the hurricane stuff, so I suspect we'll be seeing a follow-up on that at some point.
Thanks for a wonderful presentation at MSU. I enjoyed it! I can't wait to read the book. Thanks for coming!
Chris, just minutes ago from truthout's website I read "For People and Planet" by Al Gore and David Blood (originally published in the WSJ March 28th). The market-interest-profit message is as obvious as its WSJ origin. Would you consider a discussion board on your site focusing on Gore and Blood's prescription for planetary (and financial) survival?
In terms of professed and printed environmental acumen, IMHO Al Gore is surely at the forefront of all breathing politicians. And HE says this!
So, let's discuss the question; What does a scientist/mathematician say to the professed maxim that compound interest is sustainable? NO mention of compound interest appears in the article.
Twenty years ago a close friend with a Yale PhD gave me a similar strong dose of dis-illusionment. He had taught university level philosophy, especially the philosophy of nature, for forty years.
He was totally focused on overpopulation, environmental breakdown, and social catastrophe. He worshipped Garrett Hardin's "Tragedy of the Commons." from the date of its publication. He truly loved and respected nature and always lived frugally by design.
A land investment that escalated with LBJ's Vietnam/inflation delivered my friend into the world of windfall profits. Seeking sound investment, he became deeply involved with an unscrupulous mortgage broker who delivered more lucrative profits. Prior to this money making, he was deeply into currency trading, but was frightened away by the volatility. Mind you he never used the profits that I could see.
All this went on for many years. One fine day in 1987 as I listened to him passionately ranting about overpopulation and the world going to hell, I very dis-passionately accused him of being at least part of the problem since was continually seeking more and more profits from his mortgage investments. Said my most passionate environmentalist friend with complete candor; "BUT IF YOU DON'T, YOUR MONEY WON'T GROW!"
For me, it was as powerful a lesson as I ever learned.
In order to be dis-illusioned, you first have to be illusioned.
Gore and Blood are the chief honchos of a trendy investment firm called Generation Investment Management. Don't miss their investment philosophy of buying equities that "are suffiently attractively priced to deliver excess returns over the long run." If you must go, go green and don't forget the profits.